Full text of "Speculum 1930-07: Vol 5 Iss 3"

See other formats

, science He a al a apes ‘a

SPECULUM

A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES_

Volume V, Number 3

July, 1930

Published Quarterly by

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief
JEREMIAH Denis Matuias Forp

Managing Editor Assistant Managing Editor
Francis Peapopy Macouwn, Jr SaMUEL Hazzarp Cross

Assistant Managing Editor Publishing Editor
CuaRLeEs Hott TAyYLor JOHN Nicuoutas Brown
Rupo.iew ALTROCCHI JAMES Hucu Ryan

University of California Catholic University of America

CuHARLES Rurus Morey JoHN StronG Perry Tatiock
Princeton University University of California

Dana CARLETON Munro A. A. VASILIEV
Princeton University University of Wisconsin

ADVISORY BOARD

Puitie ScHUYLER ALLEN Ricuarp McKEon
University of Chicago Columbia University

ALBERT CROLL BauGu CuarRLeES D. MAGINNIs
University of Pennsylvania Boston, Massachusetts

CHARLES HENRY BEESON Kempe MALONE
University of Chicago Johns Hopkins University

ARTHUR CHARLES LEwits Brown GrEorGE La PIANA
Northwestern University Harvard University

CorRNELIA CATLIN COULTER Wituiam ALBERT NITZE
Mount Holyoke College University of Chicago

ETIENNE GILSON ArTHUR KINGSLEY PORTER
Universities of Paris and Toronto Harvard University

GEORGE LIVINGSTONE HAMILTON Epwarp KENNARD RAND
Cornell University Harvard University

CHARLES Homer HaskINs JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
Harvard University University of Chicago

Wituiam Epwarp Lunt Lynn THORNDIKE
Haverford College Columbia University
BUSINESS BOARD
Amos Puitie McManon JOHN MARSHALL
New York University Cambridge, Mass.

GEORGE ARTHUR PLIMPTON
New York City

Voi. V, No. 3 — Copyright, 1930, by the Mediaeval Academy of America. — Printep tn U.S. A.
Entered as second-class matter, May 8, 1926, at the Post Office at Boston, Mass., under the Act of August 24, 1912.

CONTENTS

Humanistic Studies and Science . . . . . . J. M. Manly

On the Text and Manuscripts of the Speculum Stul-
a) ees

The Origins of the Legend of Romeo and Juliet in
Se a a eee

The Iconography and the Sequence of the Ambula-
tory Capitals of Cluny. ...... . . K. J. Conant

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

W. B. Sedgwick

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos and the Spanish
Melody of the Lamentations ...... . . . C. Rojo

REVIEWS . Terre eee eee ee ee
Anniversary Essays in Mediaeval History by Students of Charles

Homer Haskins (J. W. Thompson); I. Bianu and N. Cartojan,
Album de Paleografie Roméneascd (Scrierea Chirilicd) (S. H.
Cross); F. Holthausen, Beowulf (K. Malone); Ch. Petit Dutaillis
and J. Lefebvre, M. I. E. Robertson and R. F. Trehane, transl.,
Studies and Notes Supplementary to Stubbs’ Constitutional His-
tory (W. E. Lunt); E. K. Rand, Studies in the Script of Tours, I;
A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours (H. A. Sanders); E. F.
Shannon, Chaucer and the Roman Poets (H. R. Patch); M. R.
Toynbee, St Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation
in the Fourteenth Century (J. D. M. Ford); A. de Boiiard, Manuel
de Diplomatique Frangaise et Pontificale. 1. (C. H. Haskins).

Announcement of Books Received .

The Editors of Specutum should be addressed in care of the
Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(cable address, ‘Speculum, Cambridgemass.’). The atten-
tion of contributors is called to the ‘Notes for Contrib-
utors’ printed each year at the end of the January issue.

SPECULUM

A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

HUMANISTIC STUDIES AND SCIENCE!

By JOHN MATTHEWS MANLY

N attempting to study the history of literature I have been in-

creasingly impressed with the futility and even the danger of the
boundaries and divisions commonly recognized. Indeed I am per-
suaded that such a conception, for example, as the history of Eng-
lish literature is not only arbitrary and artificial, but positively
detrimental to the pursuit of the object we really have in view.
What conception can we form of the intellectual and spiritual life of
the English people in the Middle Ages if we confine our study to the
writings produced by and for them in the English language? For
two hundred years the literature read and enjoyed by the upper
classes was that produced at home or on the Continent in French.
For an even longer period — in fact, for nearly a thousand years —
the language of the most highly educated classes, for all its serious
thinking and for no little of its relaxation and diversion, was Latin.
And where shall we lay down the boundaries that separate litera-
ture, on the one side, from professional writing, and on the other,
from journalism? The presence of beauty and skill in construction
or expression is not decisive. Many writings of the past occupy an
honored place in the history of English literature despite their lack
of beauty or power; and the essays of Clutton-Brock were just as
fine when they were merely leading articles in The Times as when
they were gathered into a book.

But it is not in writing only that the intellectual and spiritual
life, the culture, of a people finds expression. The importance of the
arts, of law, of government, of institutions, of social ideals and
customs, and of industry and commerce needs no emphasis. They

' Presidential address read at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the MepiAEvAL ACADEMY

or America, April 26, 1930.
243

244 Humanistic Studies and Science

are essential and important features of human culture and cannot
be neglected by the humanist. It is indeed only as the humanist
conceives his problems in the light of these facts that his work can
have any large and vital human meaning, any claim to equal stand-
ing with the natural sciences.

Both the sciences and humanistic studies have their origin in the
same impulse — Man’s irrepressible desire to know all that can be
known about the world in which he lives and about himself and how
he came to be what he is. But despite this unity of origin, it is the
belief of many, both humanists and scientists, that there is an im-
passable gulf between the sciences and humanistic studies, both in
methods and in aims. Some students of literature and literary
history look with fierce contempt upon all efforts to introduce
scientific methods or aims into these fields of study. Scientific men,
on the other hand, have regarded literary scholars, if not with con-
tempt, at least with condescension, for two reasons: First, because
of a lack of critical methods in ascertaining facts and an arbitrary
preference for some other standard than truth in interpreting them.
With the growth of historical criticism this cause of reproach has
been largely removed and it is recognized, even by scientists, that
some humanists apply to the ascertainment of facts a criticism as
searching and a logic as inexorable as their own. Moreover, it is
recognized also that some of the sciences dealing with inanimate
nature must, on the basis of both aims and methods, be classed with
the historical sciences; such notably is geology, the aim of which is
to ascertain in what order and under what conditions certain se-
quences of phenomena occurred in the past and to reconstruct
imaginatively the panorama of the life of our planet.

The second cause of reproach still exists, at least in the minds of
some critics. Our problems, say our scientific friends, are petty;
they have no range, no large significance. Why, they ask us, do you
waste so much of your energy upon insignificant authors and periods
and phenomena? Why do you not formulate and undertake re-
searches of real significance, looking toward the establishment of
important and far-reaching general laws, such as have been dis-
covered and formulated in the natural sciences?

Humanistic Studies and Science 245

The reply to this is threefold. In the first place, for reasons which
need not be discussed at present, humanistic studies as sciences are
in their infancy. They are in much the same condition and stage of
development to-day that the natural sciences were in during the
Middle Ages. They had then existed for a long time. There was a
certain inheritance of data and theories wafted down directly from
the Greeks and Romans, through tradition and through the meagre
stream of classical writers — such a body of learning as we find, for
example, in the famous encyclopaedia of Isidore of Seville. This in-
heritance was enormously enriched during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries by treatises in all branches of science translated from the
Arabic and comprising huge accumulations of Greek learning and
the large additions made by Moslem scholars of many lands. These
new floods of learning were eagerly received and were tremendously
stimulating to some of the most powerful and brilliant minds of that
time. There seemed to be no lack of data, there was no lack of in-
dustry, and certainly there was a great readiness on the part of
scholars to theorize and generalize. But what was the result? Did
Albertus Magnus or Peter de Maricourt or Roger Bacon formulate
scientific generalizations of importance and far-reaching significance?
No; it would be difficult to mention a single general law discovered
in the Middle Ages that now forms part of the body of science.

Why was this? The data were abundant, the scientists were able
men and ardent scholars. The answer is a thrice-told tale. Al-
though the data were abundant, they included as facts innumerable
false observations and many mere inventions. More than two hun-
dred years passed before it was recognized that science could not ad-
vance without casting away all these accumulations and collecting
fresh data with critical precautions that would have been incon-
ceivable to men of the thirteenth century, and furthermore that
generalizations and theories must be derived from the study of the
phenomena themselves and not from theology or metaphysics or
logic.

In the humanistic fields we have vast accumulations of data —
supposed facts — many of which will not bear critical examination
and must be replaced by the results of investigations made without

246 Humanistic Studies and Science

bias or prejudice under the strictest observance of critical method.
We have many generalizations and theories of widest scope; but un-
fortunately most of them were borrowed — not, to be sure, from
theology and metaphysics, but from biology and an embryonic and
inadequate psychology. They must be cast away and replaced by
theories based upon the phenomena themselves.

In the second place the phenomena of our subjects are much more
difficult to deal with for scientific purposes than those of the natural
sciences. We cannot reproduce them at will under experimental
conditions for critical examination. They must be studied when and
as they occur. Many of them occurred at times and places so re-
mote that only the most meagre and unverifiable information is
available concerning precedent and attendant conditions. Even
those that are nearer to us in time and space can be known only
partially and imperfectly. Moreover, in the whole range of phe-
nomena forming the fields of humanistic studies there enter human
nature and the human will — elements held by many persons to be
incalculable, so irregular in operation as to make absurd any at-
tempt to discover in these fields any scientific laws, any invariable
sequences of events. These fields, such thinkers tell us, lie outside the
reign of law, can never become provinces of the domain of science.

It is not strange, then, that humanistic studies have been slower
than the sciences to arrive at any coherent body of laws or even to
devise satisfactory methods of investigation. And if it were the task
of humanistic science to explain in the individual objects studied —
men, books, works of art, and the like — the features which dis-
tinguish them from the type or class to which each belongs, the
features which constitute their individuality, one might well doubt
whether scientific methods and results are possible. But the objects
of study of the natural sciences are always and necessarily, not in-
dividuals, but types. Formulative science never deals with any-
thing else; for the very sufficient reason that only the typical is
capable of formulation. In a world that consisted only of disparate
individuals science could never formulate, but could only describe,
and there would be as many separate descriptions as there were
individuals to describe.

a ow ee ee)

Humanistic Studies and Science Q47

This has been the situation with the humanistic sciences in at-
tempting to deal with the exceptional — with the elements in the
book or the work of art or the institution that set it apart from all
the rest. But experience is constantly proving that, even in our
respective fields of study, if we attempt to study, not the individual
and exceptional, but the typical, regularities can be discovered, ge-
neralizations can be made, laws can be formulated.

The ultimate aim of both the natural sciences and the historical
is the integration of their fields of study. There is perhaps a dif-
ference in the methods of integration proper to each. What form the
ultimate integrations of science will take we need not stop to con-
sider. For us it seems clear that integration can be accomplished
only by the constructive imagination, operating on a secure basis of
ascertained fact. Our aim is an intelligible picture of the life of man-
kind — its feeble beginnings, the motives and the methods of its
creation of instruments, agencies and institutions of a richer, fuller,
and nobler existence, the development of its arts and ideals. Part of
this task belongs to the anthropologist and archaeologist, part to the
orientalist and classicist, part to the modernist, and part to the
mediaevalist.

It is hardly too much to say that humanistic studies, with the
ideals and purposes which control them to-day, not only are akin to
the so-called sciences but are in fact more dependent upon the funda-
mental conceptions of science for their very existence than are the
natural sciences themselves. When men believed, as the whole
Christian world did until recently, that the human race was created
less than seven thousand years ago in a single pair of beings whose
sin of disobedience resulted in the peopling of the earth by succes-
sive generations of men, the historical sciences were inconceivable.
The only significant events in the annals of the race were those con-
cerned with the punishment, discipline, and training of a chosen
people, and with the acceptance of a plan for balancing accounts and
at no distant date closing the ledger of human history. The whole
past of all the nations but Jews and Christians was a meaningless
muddle. The civilizations of Egypt and Tyre and Nineveh and
Babylon had flashed into significance for only brief moments of their

248 Humanistic Studies and Science

long night when they served as instruments to aid or discipline the
chosen people. China and Japan and India, sitting in darkness, still
awaited the moment which would give meaning to their long exist-
ence. The sole possible philosophy of history was the story of the
fall and redemption of Man. Events which bore no perceptible rela-
tion to that might be studied, but only in an idle dilettante spirit, as
amusing spectacles or for the utilitarian purpose of extracting from
them practical lessons for guidance in similar circumstances.

It is not strange therefore that in the Middle Ages history was
never undertaken by men of great philosophical and constructive
minds, but was left to the annalists and the propagandists; and that
in modern times it attracted only the theologian, the politician, and
the polemist. Particular careers, or episodes, or periods could be
seen and presented as wholes, subject to some definite principle and
disclosing some definite meaning, but the spectacle of the whole
movement of the life of the human race as the inclusive subject of
humanistic studies was inconceivable until natural law began to re-
place magic in explaining sequences of events and the conceptions of
theology began to yield to those of biology.

It is in this spirit, I think, that the MepianvaL AcApEMy was
born and has worked. Not merely to stimulate many workers to
cultivate the mediaeval field, but to aid in developing in each a
vision of the whole great process of human life in the Middle Ages is
the aim and purpose of the Meprarvat Acapemy. It is not in-
tended that the specialist should abandon his specialty and attempt
to attack the problem of mediaeval civilization as a whole. To do
this would be to revert to the chaotic and unfruitful conditions of
mediaeval science. But each specialist will perhaps work with a
clearer sense of the dignity and importance of his specialty if he
understands and feels that he is helping to write the history of human
culture. Seen in this way, for example, the study of the script of
Tours becomes, not a mere curious chapter in the development of
writing, but a means of tracing, where other evidence fails us, the
interrelations of centres of culture in the Middle Ages and some of
the channels through which classical literature was distributed. The
census of Italian families resident in London in the fourteenth cen-

Humanistic Studies and Science 249

tury becomes interesting not only for the history of international
commerce but also for the revision of some of our ideas on inter-
national literary relations. The assemblage and study of business
terms in use throughout western Europe is a contribution to both
philology and the history of commerce and culture.

Millions are being spent on the discovery and reconstruction of
the life of man in remote antiquity. We mediaevalists do not be-
grudge the orientalists and archaeologists their good fortune. Their
task is a great one and the importance of the contributions they have
made and are making to the cultural history of mankind cannot be
exaggerated. But we do deplore the failure of the intelligent public
to recognize in equal measure the claims upon its interest of those
great ages which lie so near us and yet are still as deeply buried un-
der prejudices and misconceptions bequeathed to us by the Re-
formation and the Renaissance as the ancient cities of the Nile and
the Euphrates under the drifted sands of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Aside from the enchantment of remote antiquity, it is perhaps the
remarkable discoveries of art treasures — buildings, statues, pic-
tures, ornaments, fabrics, and documents — that awaken popular
interest and secure for oriental research the liberal aid of a host of
Maecenases. Unfortunately for the mediaevalist, his treasures have
lost their publicity value. Cathedrals not inferior in beauty and
splendor to the temples of the East defy the passage of time in many
a European city and town, but they have long been known. Carv-
ings in ivory, figures in stone and wood, rich designs in gold and
silver, enameled and set with precious stones, illuminated manu-

scripts of exquisite beauty, remain in abundance to testify of the
skill of the mediaeval artist and the taste of his master, but they are
scattered in a hundred museums and treasure-houses; and though
their power to charm and refresh us can never fail, they have lost the
power to excite us as they would if they had been freshly dug up

yesterday.

This should not be so. Important for the vision of Man’s halting
and painful climb upward from the Quaternary mire as are the
mysterious civilizations of the Nile valley, the Mesopotamian plain,
and the uplands of central Asia, — and no intelligent person can fail

250 Humanistic Studies and Science

to be deeply stirred by the revelations now being made by the ori-
entalist and the archaeologist, — the infinitely various and fascinat-
ing life of the period we roughly call the Middle Ages must not be
neglected. It lies close to us. In it arose many of our most important
institutions. Our social life — our customs, our ideals, our supersti-
tions and fears and hopes—came to us directly from this period; and
no present-day analysis can give a complete account of our civiliza-
tion unless it is supplemented by a profound study of the forces and
forms of life, good and evil, which we have inherited from it.

To carry out such a program, to construct the large and true
picture of the course of human civilization which it is our object to
aid in constructing, we need large additions to our funds for special
investigations. Such enterprises as the excavations of Cluny are
very expensive, but there is no question that Cluny will yield ample
returns for all the time and money spent upon it. Equally great and
expensive undertakings are the histories of science, and art, and com-
merce, and institutions, and of the part played by each in human
culture. And as our work grows, it becomes more and more necessary
to provide not only for the investigations and the investigators but
for a staff of administrative officers free to devote their time and
energy and learning to choosing the most fruitful projects and to
giving adequate assistance in carrying them on. At present the
Executive and Advisory Committees devote to the work of the
Academy an amount of time and thought that can be appreciated
only by one who knows the number and the magnitude of the pro-
jects submitted for their consideration and, if accepted, for advice
and active codperation. In particular, the Executive Secretary
should be free to devote his whole time to the interests of the Acap-
EMY, and the members of the Executive and Advisory Committees
should at least have their expenses paid when they attend meetings.
That they should give their time and work free is surely all that the
Academy can expect. The provision of a permanent endowment is
therefore necessary both for investigation and for administration.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

ON THE TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
SPECULUM STULTORUM: II

By JOHN HENRY MOZLEY

N my first article (SpEcULUM, Iv (1929), 430 ff.) I showed that

the readings characteristic of Wright’s MS. B in its divergences
from A and C are also found in a number of other MSS, designated
by me EFLGHI. Of these EFL contain large lacunae (Wr. pp. 97-
124, and pp. 130 to the end); these I discussed, and gave typical
readings for pp. 1-97 in these three MSS and B, and for pp. 1-41 in
GHI. I now propose to deal rather more fully with the four MSS
BH and GI.

B and H (Arundel 23 and Bodleian 496, F. Madan and H. H. E.
Craster’s Summary Catalogue of Western MSS (Oxford, 1922), 0, i,
item 2159) show great similarity throughout, both containing the
prose Prologue and ending together at Wr. p. 144, 10. We may
safely take H’s readings as those of B where B has suffered from loss
of leaves (Wr. pp. 41-59). Generally speaking they support EFL,
but in the final portion of those MSS (Wr., pp. 124-130) that sup-
port I, is varied by readings that agree with the A-group against
EFL.

G and I (Digby 27' and Bodleian 780; see Summary Catalogue,
loc. cit., item 2583) are also closely akin; they both have the prose
prologue, and G ends at Wr. p. 106, 18 ‘dissimulante diu,’ while I
has a lacuna at that point until Wr., p. 124, 6 (i e., the end of the
first lacuna of EFL), and ends like EFL at p. 130, 16, ‘spreta iacent’;
in the middle of the work J ' has lost a number of leaves, from Wr.
p. 50, 6 to p. 71, 14.

Both MSS begin by supporting EFL, but after Wr. p. 71 there is a
tendency to desert it, though during the final portion of I, which is
the same as that of EFL, I is nearer to them than B and H are. The
fact that all these four MSS, BHGI, give a general support to the
EFL readings, and that between them they contain all the work

! This MS., 1 am informed by Dr Craster, should be dated late 14th century.
251

252 Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: I]

down to Wr. p. 144, points to some common ancestor that origi-
nated this tradition, and therefore to omission, either purposed or
accidental, as the cause of the lacunae in EFL, rather than to those
MSS representing the earliest form of the work, and additional pas-
sages having been subsequently added. It is not surprising that
fifteenth-century MSS should show some influence of the A-tradi-
tion. But there is another important consideration, namely that of
the lines that are found in the EF L-group but not found in the A-
group. It will perhaps be useful to give a table of these:

1. Quam bene reddemus . . . uicem: p. 76, 9, 10. In ELBHGI; not in A-
group or F (by A-group I mean the MSS ACDMNJK, for which see
below). Probably due to homoioteleuton, though it may be an ad-
dition of E.

Committamus . . . tuus: p. 59, 25, 26. In EFLBHG; not in A-group.
Though not strictly a homoioteleuton, the double ‘noctis’ may have
caused omission by the latter group.

Cellarum . . . parit: p. 84, 5,6. In EFLBHGI; not in A-group.
Quamque . . . loqui: ibid. 9, 10. In EFLBH; not in A-group or GI.
These seem both to be insertions; there is no special cause of omission,
and they can be easily detached from text.

Qua facie ... pedem: p. 85, 19, 20. In EFLBHGI; not in A-group.
Pila pusillorum ... ego: ibid. 25, 26. In E...I; not in A-group.
The same remarks apply as in Nos 3 and 4.

Lesam .. . recepta: p. 91, 14, 15. In E.... H; not in A-group or GI.
Canonicos . . . domus: p. 95,1, 2. In EF BH; not in A-group or LGI.
Must have been omitted through homoioteleuton.

Sie igitur ... mihi: p. 95, 11, 12. In EFLBH; not in A-group or GI.
One would expect this couplet to follow the next one; in that case

‘ : ° -e . y )
sumat ... sumam may have caused omission, aS In No. 2.

Sed sit ut... reor: p. 100, 1-4. In BHGI; not in A-group. Probably
addition; no cause of error.

Murmure .. . simul: p. 112, 19, 20. In BH; not in A-group. Possibly
omission through homoioteleuton; text seems doubtful here.

Per me... caro: p. 119, 11, 12. In BH; not in A-group.

Belli . . . prior: ibid., 15-18. In BH; not in A-group. These two seem
likely to be later insertions, though the first may be homoioteleuton.

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: IJ 253

. Plurima . . . locutus: p. 133, 4, 5. In BH; not in A-group. Must have
been omitted through homoioteleuton.

. Quam uel eos .. . manu: p. 137, 1,2. In BH; notin CDMNJK. No
apparent cause of error; perhaps inserted to explain ‘ante’; why ‘eos’?

The lines seem hardly like Nigel’s style.

Of these, Nos 7, 8, 14 are certain omissions, Nos 1, 2, 9, 11 very
likely ones. The EFL tradition then goes back to a text earlier than
A, for it is a text from which A omitted certain couplets by the com-
mon mistake of homoioteleuton. The fact that No. 14 occurs in the
second large passage omitted in EFL is an additional reason against
explaining those lacunae by the hypothesis of the original form.

Reapincs or BHGI

For Wright, pp. 1-41, see my first article.

For pp. 42-59, where B fails (and I from pp. 50-71):

43 leditur et, ACDJKMN: lesa sed est, EFLGHI

44 illius, ACDJKMN: illata, EFGHI

46 accipiam, ACDJKMN: decipiam; EFGHI

47 cederit, ACJN: sederit, ELGHI

48 after ‘in undis’ EFLGHI have two lines not in the other MSS

51 in urbem, ACDJKMN: ad urbem, EFLGH; uidebunt, A-N:
uidebit, E-H

after ‘omne meum’ E-H have 5 lines not in other MSS

53 ait, ACJ: aue, EFH (line omitted in G)

55 multum doluere dolore, ACDJKMN: iam dedi (di) cere dolorem,
EFLGH

56 sanum, ACDJKMN: sura, EFLGH

58 profert, ACDJKMN: promit, EFLGH

I have not given all the instances of GHI supporting EFL, but
these will suffice to show that support is fairly consistent. The same
remark will apply to the next section, pp. 60-97, but here it will
be necessary only to refer to the list of readings in my first article,
and to point out that the readings in the right-hand column, those of
EFLB, are in practically all cases those of H also (the only excep-
tions being 74 quos et pudor ipse parentum BHGI with A, ete.

252 Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: [7

down to Wr. p. 144, points to some common ancestor that origi-
nated this tradition, and therefore to omission, either purposed or
accidental, as the cause of the lacunae in EFL, rather than to those
MSS representing the earliest form of the work, and additional pas-
sages having been subsequently added. It is not surprising that
fifteenth-century MSS should show some influence of the A-tradi-
tion. But there is another important consideration, namely that of
the lines that are found in the EF L-group but not found in the 4-
group. It will perhaps be useful to give a table of these:

1. Quam bene reddemus . . . uicem: p. 76, 9, 10. In ELBHGT; not in A-
group or F (by A-group I mean the MSS ACDMNJK, for which see
below). Probably due to homoioteleuton, though it may be an ad-
dition of EF.

Committamus . . . tuus: p. 59, 25, 26. In EFLBHG; not in A-group.
Though not strictly a homoioteleuton, the double ‘noctis’ may have
caused omission by the latter group.

Cellarum .. . parit: p. 84, 5, 6. In EFLBHGT; not in A-group.
Quamque . . . loqui: ibid. 9, 10. In EFLBH; not in A-group or GI.
These seem both to be insertions; there is no special cause of omission,
and they can be easily detached from text.

Qua facie... pedem: p. 85, 19, 20. In EFLBHGI; not in A-group.
Pila pusillorum ... ego: ibid. 25, 26. In E...I7; not in A-group.
The same remarks apply as in Nos 3 and 4.

Lesam . . . recepta: p. 91, 14, 15. In E.... H; not in A-group or G/.
Canonicos .. . domus: p. 95, 1,2. In EF BH; not in A-group or LGI.
Must have been omitted through homoioteleuton.

Sic igitur ... mihi: p. 95, 11, 12. In EFLBH; not in A-group or GI.
One would expect this couplet to follow the next one; in that case

‘sumat ... sumam’ may have caused omission, as in No. 2.

Sed sit ut... reor: p. 100, 1-4. In BHGI; not in A-group. Probably
addition; no cause of error.

Murmure . . . simul: p. 112, 19, 20. In BH; not in A-group. Possibly
omission through homoioteleuton; text seems doubtful here.

Per me... caro: p. 119, 11, 12. In BH; not in A-group.

Belli. . . prior: tbid., 15-18. In BH; not in A-group. These two seem
likely to be later insertions, though the first may be homoioteleuton.

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: IT 253

14. Plurima . . . locutus: p. 133, 4, 5. In BH; not in A-group. Must have
been omitted through homoioteleuton.

15. Quam uel eos ... manu: p. 137, 1,2. In BH; notin CDMNJK. No
apparent cause of error; perhaps inserted to explain ‘ante’; why ‘eos’?
The lines seem hardly like Nigel’s style.

Reapincs or BHGI

For Wright, pp. 1-41, see my first article.
For pp. 42-59, where B fails (and J from pp. 50-71):
43 leditur et, ACDJKMN: lesa sed est, EFLGHI
44 illius, ACDJKMN: illata, EFGHI
46 accipiam, ACDJKMN: decipiam; EFGHI
47 cederit, ACJN: sederit, ELGHI
after ‘in undis’ EFLGHI have two lines not in the other MSS
in urbem, ACDJKMN: ad urbem, EFLGH; widebunt, A-N:
uidebit, E-H
after ‘omne meum’ E-H have 5 lines not in other MSS
ait, ACJ: aue, EFH (line omitted in G@)
multum doluere dolore, ACDJKMN: iam dedi (di) cere dolorem,
EFLGH
5 sanum, ACDJKMN: sura, EFLGH
profert, ACDJKMN: promit, EFLGH

254 Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: IJ

against EFL, 76 parem GHI with A, etc. against EFLB, 81 nisi
quod GI with A etc. cur sic, H: quorsum, EFLB). With regard to
GI, however (i.e. G alone from pp. 60-71), the case is different; ¢
supports EFLBH consistently from pp. 60-71, but of the examples
given between p. 71 and p. 97 GI only give that support in ‘ Vienna’
for ‘uicina,’ p. 78, and in the addition of the couplet ‘qua facie . ..
pedum,’ p. 85; I follows BH in ‘harum sunt . . . partentes,’ p. 94, and
G in ‘flagellat’ for ‘flagella,’ p. 97. During the next eight pages GI
are if anything closer again to BH; owing to the lacuna they cannot
of course be compared with EFL. G then (Wr. p. 106) comes to an
end, and I has a lacuna till Wr. p. 124; for these last pages the fol-
lowing examples show J allied with EFL against BH:

124 statui reddere, EF LI: statui tradere, H: statuo tradere, AB
125 uidere, ELI: reperere, AFBH
127 hec dicens, ELI: et dicens, AFBH; pondus inerte, ELI: pondere
mersa, ABH
128 quam sic ditauit gracia totque dedit, EFLI: cui natura potens tot
preciosa dedit, ABH
neutra uacat domine seruit utraque sue, EFLI: utraque dat
domine debita pensa sue, ABH
subsistit, EF LI: subsistens, ABH
129 quicquid, EFLI: quiquam, A: quicquam, BH
130 consuetudo frequens, EFLI: mos malus esse solet, ABH

We have now to consider some MSS of the other class; so far we
have had Wright’s A and C, and the MS. which I have called K, but
there also belong to this class D/MN.

D (Dublin, Trin. Coll. 440) — for the examination of which I am
indebted to the kindness of the College authorities in sending it for
me to the British Museum — seems originally to have belonged to a
Dublin monk, since on the verso of the 1st folio appears the in-
scription in contemporary writing ‘Constat Dompno Petro Le Mona-
cho Duutm.’ Its date is about 1400. On the whole it supports A, but
agrees with K in many corrections of that MS. It has a singularly
large number of clearly impossible readings, from the point of view
both of grammar and of metre.

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: JJ 255

J (Oxford, All Souls 37), about the same date as D, is a very close
follower of A. This MS., beautifully written in large letters with
rubricated headings and initials illuminated in red and blue, is found
in the same volume with a text of the Flores Historiarum, which is a
copy of that in the Library of Eton College. Eton, however, has no
copy of the Speculum, and we cannot say what MS. was copied by
J, but it must have been either A or a MS. closely akin.

M and N (Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library, MSS (105 and
191) come next; here, too, I am indebted to the Librarian, Canon
Kynaston, for allowing them to be sent to the British Museum. Of
these N is practically a copy of M; it also has the same dislocation
that M has (after Wr., p. 126, 14 M leaves a line blank, and then
continues p. 135, 26 as far as p. 145, 16; the omitted passage is then
inserted, after which follow the last four lines); exactly the same
thing occurs in N, though N’s scribe by a marginal note shows that
he is aware of the mistake. Further, M has omitted the four lines,
Wr. p. 36, 4-11, by homoioteleuton, but inserted them later, and the
same thing has happened in N. Again, ten complete lines are omit-
ted by both MSS, ‘nec minus . . . ista deus,’ p. 144. N, however,
cannot be a direct copy of M, since it has four lines omitted through
homoioteleuton by M, Wr. p. 13, 8-11. Also in the first part of the
work M has got several rubric headings just one paragraph out of
place, but N has not made this mistake (which, however, might be
due to correction by NV). The conclusion is that both were trans-
scribed from the same original, whose text we have wherever M and
N agree.

M (14th century) belonged to the chantry of St Richard de Cante-
lupe at Lincoln, N (15th century, Ist half) to the Chapter Library,
which explains why N appears in the fifteenth-century catalogue of
the Chapter Library while M does not.

While the occasions when C and J differ from A are extremely
rare, this is not the case with MNK and D; these four MSS in fact
constitute a second tradition of variants from A, though not so
marked a one as that of EF and their fifteenth-century supporters.
GI are sometimes found in agreement also. Some examples are
given here:

256

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: I]

igitur, AC: ergo J:om. DKMN

et ut hoc . . . declarat, ACJ: om. DKMN

iuxta Salomonem qui ait, ACJ: unde Salomonis, DMN: secun-
dum illud quod Salomon ait, K

seria, AC: certa, DKMNGIJ

liquida, ACMN: liquide, DJK

donatus, ACJMN: dotatus, DKGI

socialia, ACJ: solacia, DMN: solantia K

nulloque, ACMNJ: nullique, DK

quod ego nunc cunctis, ACMNJ: quod cunctis ego nunc, DK

anona (amoma supr.), A: anona, C: aroma (corr. from annona),
J: amoma DKMN

queque tuta minus, ACMN: que caudata minus, DK

obsita, ACJ: consita, DKMN

(rubr.) Confessio Bicornis, AC: Predicacio Bicornis, DK om. J:

Planctus Bicornis (out of place), M: Consolacio Bicornis, N

grauiore, ACMNJ: leuiore, DK

cederit, ACMNJ: cesserit, DK

quid sit ego, AMNJ: quid sim ego, C: sum quid ego (sim, K), DK

uacando, ACMN J: uacabo, DK

Arnoldus, ACMNJ: Arnaldus, DK

Tarabella, ACMNJ: Tarebella, DK

triumpho, ACJ: triumphi, DKMN

after sacrata gerat, DK have 2 lines added.

Discessus Burnelli (rubr.), AJ (om. C): Recessus Burnelli, DKM:

Recessio Burnelli, N.

paribusque, A: paribus sed, K: paribus sed et, D: paribus et, MNJG

nunquam, ACJ: raro, DKMN, sunt et canonici, etc., ACMNJ: DK

have two different couplets for this one.

meo nomen de nomine sumat, ACJ: meum sumat de nomine nomen,

DKMN

reseruant, ACMNJ: reformant, DK

de quibus, ACJ: ipsemet, DKMN

cura, ACJ: crura, DKMN

stertere, ACJ: sternere, DKMN

supplice, ACJ: simplice, DKMN

ac operor mala semper, ACJ: aut operor mala queque, DKMN

Narracio (rubr.), AC: De tribus sororibus fatalibus, DKMN

si Styga iurasset, ACJMN: si de Saturno, DK

pondere mersa, ACMNJ: pondere pressa, DK

fama frequens . . . nouas: this couplet transposed before preceding
one in DKMN

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: JJ 257

135 refert, CMNJ: dolet, DK

138 firmata fide, CJM: seruando fidem, DKM

142 uincula cuncta repente, CJ: uincla penultima cuncta, DKMN
144 mazime, CJ: saltem DK

Manuscripts ABROAD

The following MSS exist in countries outside England and Ireland:
France. Paris, Bibl. Nat., Latin 16519, fol. 51 ff. Dated 1391.
Incomplete, ending ‘fecit et in populo’ ete. (Wr., p. 99, v. 2). Has
prose Prologue. Supports EFL group. (S)

Be.cium. Brussels, Bibl. Roy., No. 3156 in vol. v of Joseph
Gheyn’s catalogue, ff. 35-94v. Dated 1388, and described on fol.
2 as ‘Liber monasterit Stabulensis.’ Lacks prose Prologue. This MS.
and R (see below) were used by Marténe, who in Veterum Scriptorum
et Monumentorum Collectio edited a portion of the Speculum (Wr.,
pp. 81-95) “ex duobus MSS codicibus, uno Stabulensi altero Reginae
Sueciae’; and the title of the work in the MS., Gesta Burnelli, agrees
with his remark, ‘in veteri codice MS. Stabulensis monasterii opus
antiqui poetae invenimus nomine Burnelli.’’ Generally speaking it
agrees with the A-group, but more particularly with later MSS such
as D and K. The Utrecht and Paris printed editions appear to de-
rive from this MS., for among other similarities they share the mis-
take of omitting six lines (Wr., p. 39 ‘ne posstt’ to p. 40 ‘ simul’), and
the alteration of ‘perurat’ to ‘perurant.’ (0)

Brussels, Bibl. Roy., No. 180, in vol. 1 of Gheyn, ff. 122v.-136v.
Dated 1415, and hails from Cologne (‘pertinet fratribus S. Crucis in
Colonia’). Lacks prose Prologue, and has the same omission of six
lines as O, to which it is closely akin. 460 lines are missing in the
earlier part of the work (Wr., p. 12 ‘consuetudo’ to p. 17 ‘tuam,’ and
p. 20 ‘ante tamen’ to p. 31 ‘vale’). Belongs to A-group. (P)

Itaty. Rome, Vatican Library, Reg. Lat. 1379, ff. 1-70. The
Prefect of the Library informs me that it is early 15th century, and
in a hand possibly French, not Italian. It has the words ‘Explicit
Speculum Stultorum per manum fratris H. de Palude.’ From the very
few variants given by Marténe in the extract quoted by him (see

258 Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: [J

above) it may be concluded that this MS. belongs substantially to
the same group as 0. Has prose Prologue at end of work. (R)
One of the Vienna MSS (V!, below) was surrendered to Italy in
1918, but I have no information as to its present whereabouts.
Date, 15th century. (V})
Denmark. Copenhagen, Royal Library, S. 1364, fol. 85-134.
Date, 1470. Lacks prose Prologue. Belonged to the Domus Sanctae
Mariae in Bordesholm, then to Library at Gottorp. Closely akin to
W (q.v.). (Q)
Germany. Wolfenbiittel, August-Bibliothek, 616. Helmst., ff.
93-137. Date, 1419. It came to Helmstadt from Liibeck, and had
been previously in the possession of Flacius, who had perhaps
bought it in England (see M. R. James, Wanderings and Homes of
Manuscripts, London, 1919, p. 68). Lacks prose Prologue. It
appears to be the MS. referred to by Leyser in Poetae Medii Aen.
p. 754: ‘Exstat Sp. St. mstum in bibliothecae Academiae Juliae
correctius longe edito exemplari Guelpherbytano [i. e., the Wolfen-
biittel edition of 1662], quod ad manus nunc est.’ Belongs on the
whole to the A-group, though it would perhaps be safer to call it in-
termediate between the two, as it occasionally supports the EFL-
readings. @ follows this MS. closely. (W)
Breslau, Universitits-Bibliothek, 1V. Q. 126, fol. 153-181. In-
complete, ending (Wr. 101) ‘facta nephanda tegunt,’ and has lost a
leaf between fol. 163 and 164. Comes from the Corpus Christi com-
munity of the Knights of Malta in Breslau. Date, second half of 15th
century. Has prose Prologue. Supports the EFL-group. Akin to
the first four Vienna MSS (q.v.) and to S. (T)
Austria. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek.
i. 3154, from Salzburg, 15th century. Now in Italy. (V')
ii. 3283. Dated 1418. 87 fol. (V ’)
iii. 3467, fol. 1-56. 15th century. (V3)
iv. 3487, 44 fol. 14th century. (V 4)
vii. 12531, fol. 85-133. 15th century. (V")
MSS V!-V4 all agree with 7 in ending at the same line, and in
supporting the same tradition. They have the prose Prologue in 4
somewhat shortened form.

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: IJ 259

v. 3529, ff. 1-74v. 15th century. (V 5)

vi. 4459, ff. 2-26v. ca. 1400. (V 8)
These two MSS support the A-group. From the couplet at the end
of V ®, ‘Spec(u)lum Stultorum reperitur copia quorum/Rome Colonie
necnon ubicunque locorum,’ it seems that the MS. may have come
from Cologne, and this is supported by the presence of macaronics
on the last folio, composed of Latin and Low German mixed. This
MS. is also peculiar in writing out the verses as prose, and sometimes
substituting a loose prose paraphrase, e. g., for Wright, p. 14, v. 26,
we find ‘pro certo enim non est in medico salus quam eger optat’ (=
‘non est in medico quam cupit eger opis’). V ® deals in summary
fashion with the prose Prologue, having only the first 12 words.

For the above description of MSS, I have used: (1) information
kindly supplied me by the various Librarians; (2) a transcription of
the Brussels MS. P made by the scholar Mone, now in the posses-
sion of Dr G. G. Coulton, who very kindly allowed me to use it;
(3) rotographs of selected portions of QSTW and the Vienna MSS,
and of (Q in full.

In none of these MSS is there the long interpolation on the later
orders, found in some of the English MSS.

An analysis of all the MSS shows that their allegiance is pretty
evenly divided, 14 belonging to the A-group, viz., in England and
Ireland ACMNJDK, abroad OPRQWV5V®, and 13 to the other,
viz., in England EFLGIBH, abroad STV?%V%V*V". This distinc-
tion is admittedly a rough one, some MSS, e. g. G/QW, being of a
mixed nature. As for date, we have one of the 13th century, eight of
the 14th, four of ca. 1400, and the rest of the 15th century. It is
curious that scarcely one of the MSS that support the EF L-readings
is complete; H is the sole exception, and we have seen that its
support is not consistent throughout. Consequently, although these
readings are very often superior to those of the other group, and in
some cases date back to a MS. earlier than A, it would be impos-
sible to take any of them as a basis for a revision of the text. It
seems that A must remain by virtue of its age as the basis, but be
corrected where necessary from the other tradition rather than from
the later representatives of its own group.

260 Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: [/

The dating of the MSS shows that the popularity of the work
was greatest between 1350 and 1425, and it may be recalled that
Chaucer’s Nun’s Priest’s Tale (CT., B. 4502), which has a reference
to ‘Dan Burnel the Asse,’ was written just about the middle of that
period.

I have not attempted to construct anything in the way of a stemma
of MSS; while undoubtedly providing a pleasing exercise of in-
genuity, their practical value appears to be little.

I may be permitted, finally, to refer once more to the question of
the lacunae that exist in the three MSS, EFL. These lacunae sug-
gested a hypothesis of an earlier and shorter edition of the work,
and in my first article (pp. 434 ff.) I pointed out that the text runs
on quite naturally from p. 97 to p. 124 (Wr.), and that the inter-
vening passage has quite the nature of an interpolation, or rather
a later addition; that in the second passage, p. 130 to end, there is
nothing connected with the story of the Speculum, that it might
not have been in A at all, and that there is no hint of either of
these passages in the prose Prologue. Assuming for the moment
that the hypothesis is correct, and that Nigel added the passages
in question at a later time, we have: First edition of work some
time before 1180 (Louis VII of France, referred to Wr. p. 17, died
in that year); in 1189 Henry II died, and there was a dispute,
in which Nigel took part, between the monks of Canterbury and
Archbishop Baldwin (Stubbs, ed., Epistolae Cantuarienses (Rolls
Series, No. 38, 1865) pp. 312, 315, 317); Nigel’s treatise Contra
Curiales was written after the capture of Richard II in 1192 and
before William de Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, had been superseded
by Hubert Walter in 1195; William had made himself thoroughly
disliked, and the treatise is a bitter attack upon those in authority;
about this time then we may imagine the three passages added, viz.,
the long tirade of Wr. pp. 97-110, the ‘sententiae’ of Crow, Cock,
and Sparrow-hawk, and the story of Dryanus. The conversation of
the three birds whom Burnellus overhears must in some way repre-
sent his criticisms of the laity (‘sed quid de laicis dicam,’ etc.), but it
is not clear how, and it cannot be said that there is any indication of
date in that passage. The story of Dryanus, however, we find con-

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: JJ 261

nected with Richard I, with whom it was a favorite tale; originally
Sanskrit, it seems to have been localised in Italy before 1195: under
that year it is told by Matthew Paris as an apologue often repeated
by Richard I (see Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora, Rolls Ser., No.
57, 1874, 1, 413-416, also H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances . . .
in the British Museum, 1, 174; cf. ur (ed. J. A. Herbert), 196).
Matthew Paris connects Richard’s liking for the tale with his efforts
to get support for the Crusades; it may have begun about then to
figure as an exemplum in sermons and other exhortations, so that we
are perhaps justified in seeing in its insertion in Nigel’s work a mark
of date, namely of the reign of Richard I.

A consideration of the variants in EFL and the rest of that group
shows that: (1) in some cases, i.e., those of the lines omitted by A but
found in EFL, the tradition goes back to a MS. earlier than A; (2)
some of these variants give undoubtedly the true reading, e. g.,
‘audito’ p. 5, ‘mutus erat’ p. 11, ‘Stamine’ p. 33, ‘patet’ p. 18; (3)
others are either wrong or have the appearance of later improve-
ments, e. g. ‘nocutt differre paratis’ (Lucan, Phar., i. 281) in place of
‘noli tardare pedester,’ p. 32, and perhaps ‘orbe quod in toto non futt
usque petens’ for ‘nec tamen inuenit que cupiebat bi,’ p. 37, while in
other cases there is nothing to choose between the readings; (4)
the tradition of variants from A runs right through the other MSS,
such as B, that have all or nearly all the poem, suggesting that the
original of EFL had it too, and that the lacunae are therefore due to
loss of leaves or intentional omission. On the whole this evidence is
against the hypothesis, which must therefore be left unproved.

I have also noted the following fragments of MSS:

Munich: Stadtsbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 14529, 15th century, fol. 154:
Querela Brunelli ‘Ecce senem cernis fractumque labore decenni’
(p. 97); fol. 160 ‘Brunellus de diversis ordinibus. Ex bibliotheca mon-
asterii ord. S. Benedicti ad S. Emmeramum Ratisbonensis.’

Prague: Univ. Library, Cod. III. D. 17, 14th century: ‘fol. prael.
non num. Fragmentum Brunelli carminis Satirici Nigelli Wirekert,
quod vulgo intitulatur Asinus seu Speculum Stultorum (initio
carens).” !

! J. Truhlar, Cat. Codd. Manu. Scriptor. Latinor., 1 (Prague, 1905), 186.

262 Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: J]

Cod. X. D. 9, anno 1394: fol. 94b-96b: (Nigelli Wi-
rekert) Sp. St. seu Brunellus. (Adest tantum epistola prooemialis ad
Wilhelmum et duo versus initiales poematis codice mutilato).!

For completeness’ sake I may mention a late (? 18th cent.) transcription
in the Bodleian (Summary Catalogue, No. 3852) made from F, H and J, the
two latter MSS being used for the passage Wr. pp. 106-124 and for the
Interpolation respectively, and lacking altogether Wr. pp. 97-106 and 124
to the end.

THE INCUNABULA

The Incunabula are not of much importance for the establishment of the
text, but it may be of interest to tabulate them (so far at least as I have been
able to do so).

1. The Editio Princeps is that of Nicolaus Ketelaer and Gerardus Leempt
at Utrecht, about 1474 (= Proctor 8851, Hain 16214); it has 6 lines omit-
ted, from p. 39 ‘ne possit’ to p. 40 ‘perurant’ in Wright; fol. 17 should fol-
low fol. 6 in this ed.

2. The edition of Gui Marchand at Paris, 1485 or 1490 ( = Proctor
7978, Copinger 6586). Has the same omission as 1.

3. The edition of Conrad Kachelofen at Leipzig, 1487 or 1495 ( = Proc-
tor 2904, Copinger 6585); it lacks the prose Prologue, and omiis p. 123
1.5 to p. 130 1.27 in Wright.

4. The edition of Cornelis van Zierikzee at Cologne, February 28, 1499
( = Proctor 1491, Hain 16218); the date is printed, the pages m iv a and b
have been transposed; this edition has woodcuts.

These are all represented in the British Museum. (Hain 16215, 6 and
Copinger 6584 I have not been able to examine.) They fall into two groups,
1 and 2 against 3 and 4, 1 and 2 on the whole following the A-group of MSS,
3 and 4 the EF-group.

Since 1 and 2 share the same error with the MS. P (see p. 257), they must
either be copied direct from P or from some kindred MS.; the latter seems
the more likely, as P is too near to A in its readings; probably some inter-
mediate MS. was the source of the Utrecht and the Paris printed editions.
Those of Leipzig and Cologne must derive from some MS. akin to the later
members of the EF-group, but not now existing, for none of the MSS on the
Continent belong to that group, and it is not very likely that either B or H
(unless their provenance is foreign) should be the MS.

1 Jbid., 11 (1906), 67.

Text and Manuscripts of Speculum Stultorum: JJ 263

Generally speaking, the incunabula are very free in their treatment of
both text and metre (e. g., ‘Cicerone discretior ipso’ for ‘disertior,’ ‘de conche
cursu’ for ‘de lucis’ or ‘lincis,’ in Nos 3 and 2 respectively). The Paris
edition also alters ‘in titulo caude Francorum rex Lodowycus/non tibi precellit
pontificesque sui’ to ‘in caude titulis Anglorum rex Edoardus’ etc.! If this
is Edward IV (1461-1483), it is an argument for the intermediate MS. re-
ferred to above, since the Paris edition is dated 1490.

Kentons, HasLEMERE,
SURREY

THE ORIGINS OF THE LEGEND OF ROMEO AND
JULIET IN ITALY

sy OLIN H. MOORE

THe MoNTAGUES AND THE CAPULETS IN History

HE powerful families of Montague and Capulet, who figure in
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, never resided in Verona, and in
fact never existed at all. Contrary to the general impression, the
term Montecchi — the Italian equivalent of ‘Montagues’ — like the
term Cappelletti (Cappellini), meaning ‘Capulets,’ was the nickname
of a political band or faction, not the name of a private family.’
For the early history of the Montecchi, the most comprehensive
and probably the most reliable source is Rolandino, the Paduan
notary (died 1276), who chronicles the career of the da Romano
family, with especial attention to Ezzelino III. The notary’s work
was regarded by contemporaries as so authoritative that it served as
the model for several later chronicles, notably the Annales S. Iusti-
nae Patavint.?

1 For an opposing view, see Robert Davidsohn, ‘Die Feindschaft der Montecchi und
Cappelletti ein Irrtum,’ Deutsche Rundschau, cxvu (1903), 419-428. On p. 420 he speaks
of the Montecchi as a Haus, while on p. 426 he says, on the contrary: ‘.. . nun waren die Cap-
pelletti keine Familie.’ See also the review of Davidsohn’s article by E. G. Parodi in
Bullettino della societa dantesca italiana, x11 (1905), 240-242.

Cf. C. Cipolla, Compendio della storia politica di Verona (Verona, 1900), pp. 130, 131:
‘. .. parte dei Montecchi, famiglia potente, la quale (per quanto sembra) ricevette il suo nome
dal grosso villaggio di Montecchio Maggiore, che trovasi tra Verona e Vicenza.’

Cf., however, A. M. Allen, A History of Verona, edited by Edward Armstrong (London,
1910). On p. 45 the writer says: ‘. . . no family called Montecchi ever lived in Verona. It is
more probable that the leaders of the party came in the first instance from Montecchio, a hill-
fortress in the Vicentine district.’

Miss Allen, while in my judgment more accurate than other writers on this point, does not
clearly state that the Montecchi were not a family. She merely says that the alleged family
did not reside at Verona. She seems misleading, moreover, in suggesting apparently that the
leaders of the Montecchi party resided originally in Montecchio Maggiore. It would seem, as
we shall find presently, that during the early part of the thirteenth century the castle was in
the hands of the de Pilio (Pillio, or Piio) family, and that it was used by the heterogeneous
Montecchi faction merely as their first recruiting station.

2 Rolandini Patauini Chronica, edited by Philip Jaffé, in Monumenta Germaniae His-
torica, Scriptores, x1x, 32-147. For the indebtedness to Rolandino of the author of the

264

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy 265

According to Rolandino, the term Montecchi arose in the following
manner: Azzo marquis of Este became podesta of Verona in 1207.!
The Ghibelline leader Ezzelino da Romano was violently opposed to
such political preferment for his personal enemy. He therefore called
a gathering of his followers — from Verona, Vicenza and elsewhere —
in the castle of Montecchio. This circumstance served as a sort of
christening for Ezzelino’s followers, who were thenceforth known
as Montecchi (Monticli or Monticult).?

In another passage Rolandino repeats his assertion that the name
Montecchi belonged properly to a political band. He states that
Azzo VI, Marquis of Este, had forced an alliance with Bonifacio,
Count of S. Bonifacio, and that his faction came to be known as the
party of the Marquis. Members of the rival party of Salinguerra
Torelli and Ezzelino II da Romano, he says, were known as ‘Mon-
tecli.’ *

The castle of Montecchio Maggiore, the ruins of which are still
visible, was situated in the neighborhood of Montebello Vicentino,
in the foothills of Vicenza, and is the only authentic landmark for
the story of the Montagues and the Capulets. As was indicated by
the Latin form of its name — Monticulus, ‘little mountain’ — it was

built upon a small eminence. It matters little that eventually the
name of the castle seems to have been adopted by members of the
family resident there — ‘Marchixius and Confortus de Monticulo’ ‘

Annales S. Iustinae Patavini, see ibid., p. 148, and especially n. 3. The Annales S. Iustinae
Patavini were published under the title of Monachi Patauini Chronicon by L. A. Muratori,
Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (Milan, 1727), vii, 665-734.

1 Parisius de Cereta gives the date as 1206 (Monumenta cit., Annales V eronenses, xx, 6).

2 ‘|. congregatis amicis suis de Verona Vicencia et undecumque potuit aliunde in cas-
trum Monticli Vicentini districtus — unde postea dicti sunt Monticli . . .” — Rolandino, op.
cit., p. 43.

Rolandino’s statement concerning the origin of the Montecchi was copied, in somewhat
garbled form, by Lorenzo de’ Monaci: ‘. . . Ezerinus . . . congregatis omnibus amicis suis de
Verona, Vicentia, et Monticulo (unde postea Monticuli dicti sunt)...’ — Laurentii de
Monacis, Ezerinus III, Bk. xiii, in L. A. Muratori, op. cit., viii, 138.

’ ‘Et alii fovebant partem comitis de Sancto Bonifacio, que erat pars marchionis; alii
partem Sallimwerre, que erat et Eccelini, et hi dicebantur Montecli . . .”— Rolandino, op.
cit., p. 50.

‘ ‘Item eo anno (1285) dictus potestas Parme armata manu cum 2000 peditibus, banderiis
levatis, tubis et campanis pulsatis, ivit Monticlum ad domum Marchixii et Conforti de Monti-
culo.” — Annales Parmenses, edited by Philip Jaffé, in Monumenta cit., xvi, 698.

In 1247 troops from Parma retreated to this castle, and thence continued their march to

266 Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

— just as the family of Ezzelino da Romano itself derived its name
from the ancestral castle of Romano.’ The essential fact is that we
find no authoritative mention in the first half of the thirteenth cen-
tury of a da Montecchio family. For instance, in the year 1239, ac-
cording to Rolandino, the castle of Montecchio belonged to Ugucio
de Pilio (Piio, or Pillio), and was captured by Emperor Frederick IT.?
In 1242, it appears, Ugucio surrendered his castle to Ezzelino da
Romano.’

It is perhaps significant also that the Monticuli are at first in-
variably referred to in the plural, as if indicating their conglomerate
nature, recruited as they were from all parts of northeastern Italy,
or undecumque, as Rolandino significantly observes.

Not only was the term Montecchi reserved at the outset for a
political band in Verona, but the term Quattuorviginti (Italian Quat-
troventi), applied to the chief allies of the Montecchi, was apparently
also the nickname of a faction. Quattuorvigintt seems to have meant
originally the eighty followers of the Count of S. Bonifacio who were
bribed by Ezzelino da Romano and Salinguerra Torelli to become
renegades.‘ While this theory rests upon no more secure basis than
a marginal note in one of the manuscripts of the Annales S. Iustinae
Patavini, it affords nevertheless the most plausible explanation of-
fered for the source of the name.*

On the other hand the Counts of S. Bonifacio — the chief anta-
gonists of the Montecchi and the Quattroventi — represented a real
family, descended from Milo, Count of Verona, who ruled from 930
to 950, and from his brother Egelric.6 The story goes that a certain
Tiresio killed Count Sauro, of this family, on the hill of S. Bonifacio.
the city of Parma (ibid., p. 672). In 1296 the castle was stormed by Azzo Marquis of Este, who

was nevertheless obliged to withdraw, because of the loss of seven of his best soldiers (ibid.,
p. 719).

1 Gerardi Maurisii Historia, in L. A. Muratori, op. cit., vi, 14B. The da Romano family
formerly went by the name of da Onara. Cf. also W. F. Butler, The Lombard Communes (New
York, 1906), p. 207.

2 ‘Et (imperator) stans ibidem Vicencie, fecit sibi Monteclum maiorem dari, castrum
scilicet Ugucionis de Piio Vicentino districtus, et positis ibi custodibus Sarracenis, fecit ipsum
ulterius per imperium custodire.’ — Rolandino, op. cit., p. 72.

3 Parisius de Cereta, op. cit., p. 12. 4 A. M. Allen, op. cit., p. 51, and n. 2.

5 Annales S. Iustinae Patavini cit., p. 152, and n. d.

6 A. M. Allen, op. cit., pp. 11, 45.

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy 267

Tiresio left for the Orient after the homicide, but his brothers made
peace with the heirs of Sauro by ceding to them the hill of S. Boni-
facio, near Verona.' Thereafter the Counts of Verona took the name
of S. Bonifacio.

For the first third of the thirteenth century, the chronicles are
replete with accounts of the battles of the quarrelsome Montecchi,
whose fluctuating fortunes it will be impossible to follow in detail
here. After 1236, mention of the Montecchi becomes much rarer, but
apparently their power, as well as that of their allies the Quattroventi,
still continues in 1245, when a distribution of enemy booty was made
in their favor.”

Under date of 1252 occurs what is apparently the first attempt to
use the term Montecchi as a family name. Parisius de Cereta, who
seems to have had a fondness for adding titles to proper names,
makes a bare reference to a certain Carnarolus de Monticultis as one of
the numerous victims put to death by Ezzelino da Romano in that
year.? Rolandino, however, who gives a detailed account of this af-

1 C. Cipolla, Compendio cit., p. 131.

The anonymous author of Ricciardi Comitis Sancti Bonifacit Vita (Muratori, op. cit., vit,
122) makes the murder occur in 1184, the victim being ‘Alexandrum Comitem San-Boni-
facium’ and the murderer a member of the Montecchi ‘family,’ Ceresius ‘Monticulus.’ This
utterly unreliable ‘chronicler,’ who is undecided about the Trojan origin of the S. Bonifacio
family, makes Bonifacio the son of Sauro, and the nephew of the murdered ‘ Alexander’ (ibid).
According to him, Ludovico was the son of Bonifacio, and Rizardo the son of Ludovico.

‘...et clm Guelphorum pars praevaluisset, virtute potissimim Ricciardi, Ludovici S.
Bonifacii Filii, tune pené imberbis, impigri, ingentisque spiritus adolescentis, Monticulis
Urbe pulsis, Azo Estensis Marchio, auctore Ludovico Ricciardi patre, Praetor Veronae crea-
tur...’ (ibid.). Cf. col. 123: ‘. . . Ludovicus Sanbonifacius cum filio Ricciardo . . .’

As a matter of fact, Ludovico was the son, not the father, of Rizardo, whose biography
this anonymous ‘chronicler’ essays to write. ‘... (Ricardus) ... Reliquit autem unicum
filium parvulum nomine Ludovicum . . .. — Annales S. Iustinae Patavini, p. 162. Cf. A. M.
Allen, op. cit., p. 80. Rolandino refers to this son as ‘Leoisius’ (op. cit., p. 81).

It might be noted also that Parisius de Cereta makes Bonifacio the son of Sancius
(= Sauro?) of S. Bonifacio (op. cit., p. 6).

The date of the death of Sauro is given in the Annales Sanctae Trinitatis as 1189
(Monumenta cit., x1x, 5).

2 *1245 ... Veggasi doc. 26 apr. 1245 S. Mich. in Camp. 387, dove sotto la podesteria di
Guiberto de Vivario si parla de distribuire “bona et possessiones Jnimicorum inter amicos
partis monticulorum et quattuorviginti.”” —C. Cipolla, Antiche Cronache Veronesi (Ve-
nice, 1890), p. 292, note.

* Parisius de Cereta, op. cit., p. 14. Parisius de Cereta not only gives a title to all the other
persons mentioned in this passage, but bestows the title of comes Sancti Bonifacii upon Marcus
Regulus, who died in 1142, and is referred to in the Annales Breves simply as comes Malregula-

268 Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

fair, mentions no connection between Carnarolus and the Montecchi,
According to his version, ‘Dompnus’ Carnarolus, as well as his
brother, Friar Felisius, of Padua, were victims of Ezzelino III da
Romano. He calls Carnarolus a prominent citizen — ‘potentem
virum et divitem’ — of Verona. His brother, on the contrary, seems
to have been a humble priest, and a teacher of the Germans in Padua:
‘Praeceptor sive magister Alemanorum in Padua.’! Carnarolus was
imprisoned, compelled to do menial service in the house of the tyrant,
and then publicly flogged in the streets of Verona.*

While it does not seem, consequently, that the title de Monticulis
given by Parisius de Cereta was well established, there appears
nevertheless to have been a gradually increasing tendency to use
this sobriquet as part of a family name. For instance, on September
23, 1279, one of the signers of the peace between Brescia, on the one
hand, and the allied citizens of Verona and Mantua on the other,
was the Mantuan Astolfinus qui dicitur Monteclus.* Again, in 1324,
according to an unedited chronicle, Crescimbene de’ Monticoli with
his two sons was expelled from Verona by Can Grande della Scala,
and finally took refuge in Udine.‘ This gradual application of a party
nickname to private families may be compared with such American
expressions as ‘Gypsy’ Smith, ‘Silver Dick’ Bland, or ‘Texas’
Jones, indicating the tribal, political, or geographical connections of
the individual.®

tus (Monumenta cit., xix, 2). The best evidence would indicate that the title of comes
Sancti Bonifacii was not adopted by the family until the latter part of the twelfth century.
See C. Cipolla, Compendio cit., p. 181. 1 Rolandino, op. cit., p. 98.

2 ‘Supra dictus siquidem dompnus Carnarolus in platea Verone est dilaceratus per frusta
...’ (ibid., p. 99).

In the Annales S. Iustinae Patavini, Carnarolus is spoken of simply as a ‘ miles Veronensis,’
and a victim of Ezzelino da Romano (Annales S. Iustinae cit., p. 162).

3 C. Cipolla, Documenti per la storia delle relazioni diplomatiche fra Verona e Mantova nel
secolo xiii (Milan, 1901), p. 178.

4 “Non senza amaritudine singhiozzando rammento lo sventurato giorno, nel quale il
magnifico M. Crescimbene de’ Monticoli con due figli di tenera eta, e con il signor Federico
Della Scala (di cui Crescimbene favori le trame contro Cangrande), fu nel 1324 crudelmente
scacciato da Verona. Al quale dopo lunga peregrinazione, da Carlo IV imperatore fu concesso
di abitare in Udine (1348), e fu provveduto di onorevole mantenimento.’ — Cronaca Ms.
Udinese, cited by Cino Chiarini, Romeo e Giulietta (Florence, 1906), p. 42, n. 2.

5 In the Appendix to the 14th century Antonii Godi Nobilis Vicentini Chronica, in L. A.
Muratori (op. cit., v1, 91, 92), is a list of Vicenza families which have been lost sight of:

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy 269

If the historical development of the term Montecchi has been
little understood in the past, we have been more fortunate with re-
gard to the term Cappelletti. Thanks to the valuable researches of
R. Davidsohn, the origins of the Cappelletti are fairly familiar to
specialists in Italian mediaeval history, although still ignored, unfor-
tunately, by certain authorities on the literary history of the period.
For the benefit of the latter, it will be recalled here that the Guelf
Cappelletti, far from being a family living in Verona, were a faction
associated with the political affairs of Cremona. Their Ghibelline
opponents were known as Barbarasi,' according to reliable chron-
iclers, or Troncaciuffi, according to the commentator Peter Ali-
ghieri.2 Obviously the nicknames Barbarasi and Troncaciuffi referred
to the practice of shaving their beards, as a mark of distinction.*
In fact, they have been compared appropriately to ‘the Round-
heads and the Croppies of English and Irish history.’ The Cappel-
lett, or Cappellini, for their part, evidently wore small hats or caps
as insignia. Later, as was pointed out by an able Italian critic three
quarters of a century ago, history repeated itself, and the name was
adopted by a troop of Venetian light horsemen — a fact which may
have had its weight with Luigi da Porto.‘

The fortunes of the Cappelletti may be traced briefly, if only to
establish further the parallel with the fate of the Montecchi. In 1249,
taking advantage of the declining authority of Emperor Frederick
‘Hae sunt familiae, quae in Civitate nostra Nobiles erant, et ita extinctae ut de eis vir maneat
memoria.’ Among these ‘families’ were mentioned the ‘Comites Monticuli Praecalcini,’ who

were given as ancestors not only for the Montecchi of Verona, but also for their bitter rivals,
the Counts of S. Bonifacio.’

‘Comites Monticuli Praecalcini, ex quibus nati sunt Comites de Sancto Bonifacio, et
Domus Monticulorum qui potens fuit Veronae.’

1‘. ...habendo Amadinus magnam partem in civitate que Capelleti appellabatur; alii
intrinseci Barbarasi dicebantur . . .” — Annales Placentini Gibellini, in Monumenta cit., xvi,
498.

* Petri Allegherit Super Dantis Ipsius Genitoris Comoediam Commentarium, edited by
Vincenzo Nannucci (Florence, 1845), pp. 332-333.

? See R. Davidsohn, loc. cit.; W. F. Butler, op. cit., p. $49.

* Cf. Giuseppe Todeschini, ‘Lettera a Bartolommeo Bressan,’ in Lettere storiche di Luigi
da Porto, edited by Bartolommeo Bressan (Florence, 1857), p. 428.

For Cappellini, the alternate form for Cappelletti, see Cronaca di fra Salimbene Parmigiano
del? ordine dei minori, translated by Carlo Cantarelli (Parma, 1882), 1, 264: ‘In Cremona,
que’ che parteggiavano per la Chiesa si chiamavano Cappellini, o Cappelletti; que’ che tenevano
per ’ Impero, si nominavano Barbarasi.’

270 Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

II, the Cappelletti attempted an uprising against the Barbarasi,
without success. The insurgents were banished from Cremona, to-
gether with their leader Amadinus de Amatis.'

The following year, a band of some 2000 Barbarasi attacked the
Cappelletti in their place of refuge. After a long siege, Amadinus de
Amatis was captured. By a stroke of good fortune, the prisoners
were all permitted to escape by their custodian Marquis Lancia,
podesta of Lodi. The cause for this leniency remains a disputed
point — whether bribery, or sympathy with the Cappelletti faction,
or jealousy of the podesta of Cremona.’

In 1259, we find the combined authorities of Verona, Mantua,
Ferrara and Padua making an alliance with the podesta of Cremona,
by the terms of which they agree to consider the Barbarasi party as
being the commune of Cremona, and promise to give neither aid nor
counsel to the Cappelletti banished from that city.*

In 1267, it would appear, the Cappelletti had recovered some of
their lost power. Through the intercession of a legate of Pope
Clement IV, they were allowed to return to Cremona,‘ where they
seem to have caused few disturbances worth recording. The last
reference to them by a contemporary occurs in Dante’s Purgatorio.

As far as authentic records go, the Ghibelline Montecchi of Verona
never seem to have come into conflict with the Guelf Cappelletti of
Cremona. The history of the twelfth century, however, furnishes a
curious parallel for the formation of their names. In that century,
the mercenary troops commonly known as Brabancons derived their
names from the duchy of Brabant, where they were first recruited,
much as the Montecchi were named for the castle of Montecchio
Maggiore, first recruiting station of Ezzelino II da Romano. The
antagonists of the Brabancons were called Caputzi, from the linen
hoods which they wore, just as the Cappelletti were named also for
their characteristic headgear. Apparently, no claim has ever been
advanced that the Caputii were a private family.

1 Annales Placentini Gibellini, loc. cit. 2 Tbid., p. 499.
3 C. Cipolla, Documenti cit., pp. 71, 77. * Annales Parmenses Maiores, p. 680.

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Jultet in Italy 271

EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGEND OF THE
MonTAGUES AND THE CAPULETS

If it be admitted that the Montecchi and the Cappelletti existed as
unrelated political factions, some of the currently accepted views
regarding the origins of the legend of Romeo and Juliet will have to
be revised. It will be impossible to accept, for instance, the view of
Cino Chiarini, who says, following Todeschini: ‘I Montecchi e i
Cappelletti nominati da Dante rappresentano due diverse frazioni
del partito ghibellino.’! The Cappelletti, as we have seen, were fol-
lowers of the Pope, not of the Emperor. Nor will it be possible to
accept the statement of G. Brognoligo, whose views still find the
widest acceptance, that the Montecchi and the Cappelletti were a
‘coppia di famiglie.’ *

In fact, when we come to trace the literary tradition of the Montec-
chi and the Cappelletti, we shall be confronted by a new problem,
similar to that presented in the historical evolution of the Montecchi.
It will be our task to determine at what stage of the development of
the legend the idea arose that the Montecchi and the Cappelletti
were families. A second problem will be: When did the notion of
hostility between the Montecchi and the Cappelletti first manifest
itself?

To answer these questions, for which no satisfactory solution has
yet been offered by literary critics, we shall be obliged to begin at the
source, and trace the early development of the legend step by step.

The earliest apparent association of the terms Montecchi and Cap-
pelletti occurs in the sixth canto of the Purgatorio. Here Dante, in-
spired by the stately presence of the troubadour Sordello, pro-
nounced a bitter apostrophe to Italy, in which he invoked the aid of
Albert of Hapsburg. He earnestly beseeched this emperor, who was
so indifferent to Italian affairs that he had neglected to be crowned

1 W. Shakespeare: Romeo e Giulietta, edited by Cino Chiarini, (Florence, 1908 or later),

. Xi.
, * Gioachino Brognoligo, ‘Montecchi e Cappelletti nella Divina Commedia’ (Bologna,
1893), Estratto dal Propugnatore, Nuova Serie, v1, Part 1, Fasc. 31-32, p. 8.

272 Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

in Italy, to come and behold the civil strife which was demoralizing

the country:
Vieni a veder Montecchi e Cappelletti,
Monaldi e Filippeschi, uom senza cura;
Color gia tristi, e questi con sospetti! !

With his characteristic symmetry, Dante balanced the names of
the Montecchi and Cappelletti, factions which had destroyed them-
selves in past strife (color gid tristi), with the contemporary and bet-
ter known parties — the Monaldi and Filippeschi of Orvieto — who
were in a dubious situation because of their dissensions (e questi con
sospetti).2 The language of the poet was somewhat cryptic, as was
customary when he assumed the réle of high priest. Furthermore,
the first two factions mentioned had completely passed from popular
recollection. As a consequence, a series of misinterpretations arose,
which became crystallized into one of the most famous legends of
literature.

Let us now examine, in chronological order, some of the early
comments upon this passage.

(a) Jacopo Deis Lana

1323-28. — According to Jacopo della Lana, who obviously under-
takes little more than a paraphrase of the text of Dante at this point,
the Montecchi and Cappelletti were a party in Cremona, while the
Monaldi and Filippeschi were a party in Ancona.* Apparently the
first-named factions were allies, in his opinion, although they might
also have been taken to be enemies.‘

(b) Ortimo CoMMENTO

1334. — The Ottimo Commento here follows literally Jacopo della
Lana.°

1 Orvieto was in the province of Ancona (ibid., p. 14, and n. 8).

2 ‘Qui per digressione noma parte di Cremona per principio di Lombardia, e parte d’An-
cona per principio della Marca Anconitana.’ — Comedia di Dante degli Allagherii col Com-
mento di Jacopo della Lana Bolognese, edited by Luciano Scarabelli, in the Collezione di Opere
Inedite o Rare dei Primi Tre Secoli della Lingua (Bologna, 1866), 11, 72. Scarabelli changes the
reading Cremona, given by all the codices, to Verona.

3 Purgatorio, vi, 106-108. * See G. Brognoligo, op. cit., p. 14.

5 L’Ottimo Commento della Divina Commedia (Pisa, 1828), 11. 83-84.

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy 273

1340-41. — The first commentator furnishing accurate historical
information regarding the political situation in Verona and Cremona
during the thirteenth century was Peter Alighieri. According to
him, there were two parties in Verona, that of the Montecchi, and
that of the ‘Counts.’ In Cremona, the Cappelletti were opposed by
the Troncaciuffi. In Orvieto, the rivals of the Monaldi faction were
the Filippeschi.'

By the party of the ‘Counts,’ Peter Alighieri doubtless means
the faction of the Count of S. Bonifacio, which was also called the
party of the marquis, because one of its leaders was the Marquis of
Este. The name Troncaciuffi, as has been observed, was an alter-
native form for Barbarasz.

(d) Copice CAssINESE

Middle of 14th century. — The author of the Codice Cassinese
follows closely the commentary of Peter Alighieri.’

(e) GIovANNI VILLANI

i348. — The chronicler Giovanni Villani does not mention the
Montecchi and Cappelletti, but describes the Guelf Monaldeschi and
the Ghibelline Filippeschi as families which were active rivals in the
city of Orvieto during the early part of the fourteenth century. In
1312 the Monaldeschi succeeded in expelling the Filippeschi from
Orvieto, almost under the nose of the Emperor himself. In 1337,
after a period of tyrannical rule, the Monaldeschi were themselves
driven out by the indignant citizens of Orvieto.’

1 ‘De quo secutum est quod in Verona est facta pars Montecchia et pars Comitum; in
Cremona Cappelletti et Troncaciuffi; in Urbeveteri pars Monaldeschia et Philippesca; et sic
de aliis.’ — Peter Alighieri, loc. cit. See G. Brognoligo, op. cit., p. 10.

* Il Codice Cassinese della Divina Commedia, edited by Monaci Benedettini, Tipografia
di Monte Cassino (1865), p. 220.

For paleographical reasons the editors date the commentary about the middle of the
fourteenth century (ibid., pp. xviii and x1).

* Cronica di Giovanni Villani (Florence 1823), 1v, Bk.1x 8, chap. xl, 34, 35; and vi, Bk. xi,
chap. Ixxv, 153.

274 Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

(f) Benvenuto pa Imoia

1379. — Benvenuto da Imola, for the passage in question, utilizes
several sources. Like Giovanni Villani, he asserts that the Monaldj
and Filippeschi were noble houses of Orvieto, but goes a step further,
originating the statement that the Montecchi and Cappelletti were
families also. This natural error may doubtless be ascribed to the
influence of Villani.

Benvenuto gives an account of the alliance of the Montecchi with
Ezzelino da Romano, and of their struggle against Azzo Marquis of
Este, who succeeded in returning to Verona, owing to the support of
the Count of S. Bonifacio. Except for one important detail, he fol-
lows here the Monachi Patavini Chronicon, or Annales S. Tustinae
Patavini.' He differs from the chroniclers, however, by representing
the Cappelletti as allies of the Montecchi, a notion which he may have
derived from Jacopo della Lana.’

(g) Francesco pa Buti

1380. — Probably influenced by Jacopo della Lana, Francesco da
Buti places both the Montecchi and the Cappelletti in Cremona. He

is the first writer to mention hostility between the two parties, hay-
ing perhaps some inkling of their difference in political faith.’

(hk) Comento ms. Tratto pA Varys Curosatori (Barberiana
de Roma)

14th century? — The above-mentioned commentary, which is
cited by Alessandro Torri, represents the Montecchi and Cappelletti

1 Op. cit., p. 149. See John M. Gitterman, Ezzelin von Romano, I. Teil: Die Griindung der
Signorie (1194-1244) (Stuttgart, 1890), p. 94.

2 ‘Dicit ergo: Vieni a veder Montecchi e Cappelletti. Istae fuerunt duae clarae familise
Veronae, maxime Monticuli, quae habuerunt diu bellum cum alia nobilissima familia, scilicet,
cum comitibus de Sancto Bonifacio. Nam Monticuli comites cum favore Eccerini de Romano
eiecerunt Azonem II, marchionem estensem, rectorem illius civitatis; sed ipse in manu forti
cum comite Huberto Sancti Bonifacii, Monticulis acie debellatis, reintravit Veronam, uwbi
finem vitae feliciter terminavit. Et dicit: Monaldi e Filippeschi; istae fuerunt duae nobiles
domus de urbe veteri...’ — Benvenuto de Rambaldis de Imola, Comentum super Danlis
Aldigherij Comoediam, Sumptibus Guilielmi Warren Vernon, curante Jacobo Philippo
Lacaita (Florence, 1887), vol. 11.

3 Commento di Francesco da Buti sopra la Divina Commedia di Dante Allighieri, edited by

Crescentino Giannini (Pisa, 1860), 1, 138.

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy 275

as hostile factions, after the manner of Francesco da Buti. By a
curious inversion, however, the author makes the Montecchi Guelfs,
and the Cappelletti Ghibellines.'

(t) ANOoNIMO FIORENTINO

Late 14th or Early 15th Century.— The Anonimo Fiorentino,
abridging the commentary of Benvenuto da Imola, asserts that the
Montecchi and Cappelletti were families allied against the Marquis of
Este in Verona.’

(7) Epizione NiposBeaTINA

1478. — The author of the Edizione Nidobeatina follows closely
Peter Alighieri. His geographical explanations are taken apparently
from Jacopo della Lana.°

(k) Curistororo LANDINO

1481. — For the passage under consideration, Christoforo Landino
abridges the commentary of Benvenuto da Imola.‘

(1) ALESSANDRO VELLUTELLO

1544. — Alessandro Vellutello, as usual, repeats the statements of
Christoforo Landino.°

(m) BERNARDINO DANIELLO

1568. — Following Benvenuto da Imola, Bernardino Daniello
represents the Montecchi and Cappelletti as being allied families.
He is the first commentator to speak of the Cappelletti as Ghibel-
lines.®

1 Cited by Alessandro Torri in Giulietta e Romeo (Pisa, 1831). p. xviii.

? Commento alla Divina Commedia d’ Anonimo Fiorentino del Secolo XIV, edited by Pietro
Fanfani (Bologna, 1866-1874), 11, 107.

4 Alighieri Commedia con Commento (Milan, 1478), Fo. 97r.

* Dante con l'Esposizione di Christoforo Landino e d’ Alessandro Vellutello, edited by
Francesco Sansovino Fiorentino (Venice, 1596), p. 186.

5 Ibid., p. 187.

* Dante con l’ Esposizione di M. Bernardino Daniello da Lucca, (Venice, 1568), p. 274.

276 Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy

We have now reviewed the early stages of the development of our
legend, and the results may be summarized as follows:

The traditional conception of the Montecchi and the Cappelletti
really begins with an obscure passage in Dante’s Purgatorio, where,
in one verse, the names of the factions are found in juxtaposition.
In the verse immediately following, the poet.places the names of
rival factions in Orvieto, the Monaldi and the Filippeschi.

Three interpretations for the passage presented themselves:

(a) The Montecchi and Cappelletti were allies, and probably
Ghibellines, because they were described as gid tristi, and hence
were proper subjects for the Emperor’s solicitude.

(b) The Montecchi of Verona and the Cappelletti of Cremona were
early thirteenth-century examples of civil dissension, while the
Monaldi and Filippeschi were early fourteenth century examples of
the same evil.

(c) The Montecchi and Cappelletti were hostile factions — or
perhaps families — just as the Monaldi and Filippeschi were said by
Villani to be rival families.

The conception of the Montecchi and Cappelletti as allies, first ap-
parently suggested by Jacopo della Lana, was developed by Ben-
venuto da Imola, who originated the statement that the names in
question belonged to families. Benvenuto also drew from Paduan
chronicles details of the conflict between Ezzelino da Romano and
the Este family. His ideas were later adopted by Anonimo Fioren-
tino, Christoforo Landino, Alessandro Vellutello and Bernardino
Daniello.

Peter Alighieri was the first commentator to explain that the
Montecchi were a faction of Verona, while the Cappelletti were a
party at Cremona. The author of the Codice Cassinese copied him,
while the author of the Edizione Nidobeatina amplified his state-
ments. Peter Alighieri’s explanation, while historically correct,
proved the least popular of all.

The idea of hostility between the Montecchi and Cappelletti, first
suggested by Francesco da Buti, is found in the Comento MS. Tratto
da Varj Chiosatori. Eventually this innovation was generally

Origins of Legend of Romeo and Juliet in Italy 277

adopted because of the example of the novelist Luigi da Porto, who,
P P g

pretending to investigate old historical records, in reality consulted
principally some of the Dante commentators.’

1 Luigi da Porto seems familiar with the commentaries of both Benvenuto da Imola and
Francesco da Buti. In the opening paragraph of his novella, he writes:

‘... E avvegnaché io alcune croniche leggendo abbia trovato, come queste due famiglie
unite cacciarono Azzo da Esti governator della detta terra, il quale poscia col favore de’ Sam-
bonifazi vi ritornd; .. .’

Here he accords perfectly with Benvenuto da Imola, and with no known chronicler.

For the story of the hostility of the two ‘families,’ he doubtless follows Francesco da Buti.

He has also read apparently the Cronica MS. Udinese already referred to.

Onto StaTE UNIVERSITY

THE ICONOGRAPHY AND THE SEQUENCE OF THE
AMBULATORY CAPITALS OF CLUNY

By KENNETH JOHN CONANT

Research Associate in Archaeology of the Mediaeval Academy of America

LL extant portions of the Abbey church of Cluny are receiving
careful study in connection with the Mediaeval Academy’s
project of excavation, and the eight beautiful sculptured capitals
from the ambulatory are no exception to this rule. They are well
known, ranking among the finest of Romanesque sculptures by uni-
versal consent, but they have presented great archaeological
problems.

That they were still in their places in 1823 is attested by a litho-
graph of the exterior of the apse, dated in that year and republished
in SpecuLuM, 11 (1928), 403. The drawing shows the ambulatory
roof still in place, though the apse vault had fallen, and probably
injured the capitals in its fall. The modern stable, constructed to
house the stallions of the government Dépét, covers a large part of
the site of the sanctuary. Apparently it was built about 1835, and
the capitals were in all probability taken down rather than thrown
down when the ruins were demolished to make way for it. Indeed,
there is still in use at Cluny an old lewis which fits more recent en-
largements in the mediaeval lewis holes.

Five of the capitals bear a stenciled O, which may mean that they
were set aside for Doctor Ochier, a local magnate of the day. He
had a small lapidary museum in a pavillion near the town hall, and
the capitals are said to have formed a part of it. Doctor Ochier's
house — none other than the abbatial palace built by Jean de
Bourbon — eventually came into the possession of the Town of
Cluny, as did his collection. Toward the end of the nineteenth cen-
tury the palace was in large part transformed into a museum to
receive these and other objects. The fragments from the excava-
tions are stored in this building.

The capitals are now set on parts of the original marble shafts on
the ground floor of the museum. They bear traces of several unre-

278

KIC FP del

[EJC. ar F Pet R F mens

MeTRESO 1 2 3 4 5

FiGuRE 1

ABBEY CHURCH, ACCORDING TO THE EXCAVATIONS OF 1929

The sequence of the capitals is indicated.

Diversion"\® 7 1@ Corinthian
x x

> bur fous
x tis
Ot vm vn OW v Wom
eX! se-@3 5S@:e+ 20°06°~
. ye Wind? Cardi Theo First Prudence
jones nal logical Tones Seasons
Virtues
In
@;°e

asPeerMereese &

Figure 2

DIAGRAM oF MunicipaL Museum at CLuUNY, INDICATING LOCATION OF

SHAFTS AND CAPITALS

The shafts are given Roman numerals; the capitals, Arabic numerals.

Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny 279

lated systems of numbering, so that for convenience a diagram is
given here with the shafts numbered 1-xu according to their position
in the museum and the capitals numbered 1-8 according to the
sequence recently worked out by the present author and set forth in
this article. These numbers, as well as those assigned to the transept
capitals already published, will be used in the final monograph on
the abbey which is to be published by the Mediaeval Academy.

The present arrangement puts the handsomest capitals near the
doors and in the centre of the room, and the least broken face to-
ward the light. There is nothing to show that any other idea gov-
erned the placing of the pieces. There is no known indication on the
capitals or in the records of the original grouping, and since the
capitals have been moved at least three times and rotated once (by
Doctor Pouzet), nothing in their present arrangement can be relied
on as evidence for the original arrangement.

The same may be said of the shafts. Number vui still retains an
iron dowel on top; shaft rv, the smallest in diameter, was probably
near the top of acolumn. The size of the shafts varies from 1’-6;"
(0 m. 46) to 1’-7;2" (0 m. 503) in diameter. There are in the museum
five thin drums of limestone measuring from 1-7" (0 m. 49) to
1'-7;,” (0 m. 505) in diameter, with cavetto and astragal carved on
them, which possibly came immediately under the capitals. One
of these (now a misfit on shaft 1) seems to have been painted to
match the marble; the profiles correspond to those of the typical
engaged columns of the church.

It is said that six of the shafts in the ambulatory were of marble,
brought from Rome, and this is entirely probable. They were
probably the sumptuosas depolitiones against which St Bernard in-
veighed in his Apology to Guillaume de St-Thierry [SpEcULUM, v
(1930), 88]. The marble shafts have lewis-holes in the top, with a
double slope in the Greek manner or with a single slope in the Roman
fashion. They are unfluted and far from perfect geometrically,
which implies a Roman date. Several imperfections are or have been
filled with lead and painted. Since the ambulatory columns at
Cluny were about twenty diameters in height, twelve ancient col-
umns may have been used. Shaft 1v, which is of marble, has a

280 Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny

V-cut incised consecration cross 4 };” (0 m. 12) high, resembling the
painted one in the Chapel of St Gabriel. Two of the ambulatory
columns were carried out in the local limestone. It is worth noting
that the plan of the ambulatory chapels at Cluny naturally calls for
ten columns in the apse; eight were used instead, probably to avoid
putting as many as four limestone columns with the marble ones.
Since the first ambulatory arch at each side was much larger than
the others, it is reasonable to suppose that the stouter columns were
toward the west, the slenderer ones toward the middle; but the study
of the capitals is inconclusive on this point. The easternmost piers
hid the westernmost columns in a ordinary view down the nave;
perhaps, therefore, the limestone columns, which seem to have
measured about 1’-7;," (0 m. 492) in diameter, were put at the ends
of the series.

For the placing of the capitals we have no direct evidence. Since
each capital may have been in any one of four positions on any one of
the eight shafts, the number of possible arrangements is very large.
The arrangement finally arrived at is plausible rather than certain,
for it rests on a tissue of probabilities, but the study was made under
the best possible conditions. In the summer of 1929 two sets of
casts of the capitals were made by workmen from the Trocadéro
Museum, and one of these was sent to Cambridge, the expenses being
met by a grant from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Founda-
tion and certain private funds. The casts were set up in the beauti-
fully lighted central court of the Fogg Museum with the original
intervals and radius as recovered in the excavations of 1929. All of
the promising sequences were tried out, and the fact that they could
be studied at leisure under practically the original conditions of
space and lighting was of immeasurable assistance.

The following indications were taken into account in establishing
the sequence:

1. Owing to the plan of the apse, two of the capitals were set
diagonally to the main axis of the church. Therefore it is natural to
put Capital 1 (Corinthian) which has its abacus elaborately carved
on two adjacent sides, and Capital 8 (the Last Tones) which has its
inscriptions across the diagonals, at the ends of the series. The more

Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny 281

elaborately carved of the two adjacent sides of the abacus of Capi-
tal 1 faces toward the altar if the capital is placed at the north, and
this puts the most broken side toward the apse, where it was most
likely to be damaged by falling masonry. A volute of Capital 8 was
found in the excavations of the south side of the sanctuary, and it is
therefore natural to put this capital on the south side.

11. Related monuments suggest an alternation between Corinthi-
anesque and freer forms in the sequence. It is therefore reasonable
to put the capitals with mandorlas in the second, fourth, and sixth
places. The scale and design of Capital 8 is such that it does not ap-
pear to advantage except at the end of the series. The handsomest
arrangement of the other capitals places the one with the angular
mandorla (the Theological Virtues) as number 4, midway between
the capitals with almond-shaped mandorlas.

1. Since the Capital of the Last Tones (8) comes at the southern
extremity, it is natural to expect the Capital of the First Tones (2)
opposite, suggesting the responses of a monks’ choir. The capital
has been found to give a most satisfactory effect when placed second,
where it is the first figured capital on the northern side. An excel-
lent effect is obtained from all sides if the First Tone is set looking
toward the sanctuary. The lines compose beautifully with the rest
of the series. The Eight Tones were doubtless included in the icono-
graphical scheme to express the love and high cultivation of music
at Cluny, and to symbolize the richness of God’s praise which was
offered there.

tv. A plausible choice for third place is the Corinthianesque
capital (3), with an unbroken figure variously identified as a ‘Wind’
or ‘Harvester’ on account of a bellows-shaped attribute of some
wicker-like material. The subject of this capital may never be satis-
factorily settled because the remaining figures are so badly broken.
A crack across the lower part of the capital suggests that it was
damaged by structural disorder in the apse. Capital 4 (the Theolog-
ical Virtues) has a larger crack across the middle, and it is quite
reasonable to put the two side by side. The most satisfactory ar-
rangement of the figures places the most broken side toward the

282 Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny

altar, and the intact corner adjacent to an unbroken rear corner of
Capital 4.

v. Capital 4, with its four angular mandorlas, is the smallest of
all in lower diameter, and therefore, on account of the probable ar-
rangement of the columns suggested above, it should be put in the
middle part of the series. Its abacus is more elaborately worked on
one side than on the other three, which would seem to indicate a
capital looking almost directly toward the nave. A defect in the
stone mars a volute on the opposite side. This evidence concurs
with the impression gained on purely esthetic grounds and fortifies
the reasoning which places the Corinthian Capital (1) at the begin-
ning of the series.

The iconography of Capital 4, long enigmatic, has now received
its solution. The first figure, which holds an open coffer, is carved
under the elaborate side of the abacus, and thus doubtless faced the
altar; its iconographic type is used in Gothic times for Largesse, and
here doubtless stands for Charity. The succeeding face on the right
has a kneeling figure facing east with the hands in the attitude for
receiving a consecrated Host, and so represents Faith. The flowered
staff and the heart held by the next figure are both used in later
times to denote Hope. Thus the three Theological Virtues occur on
this capital just north of the axis of the apse, with ‘the greatest of
these,’ Charity, looking down into the sanctuary. The remaining
figure is almost completely missing. It had a graceful balancing at-
titude, with a scale-pan or some very similar object suspended from
each of the outstretched hands. Thus it is likely that Justice, one of
the Cardinal Virtues, was chosen to fill out the series of Theological
Virtues on Capital 4. The Abbot of Cluny had the right of justice
in the town, which received its charter from St Hugh.

vi. Iconographically, esthetically, and theoretically, the Capital
of the Four Rivers of Paradise is best placed fifth in line, beside the
Capital of the Theological Virtues (4). First of all, it is a common-
place that the Four Rivers are the figures of the Four Cardinal
Virtues. Thus the two types of virtue are brought together on op-
posite sides of the main axis. As with Capital 4, the abacus of Capi-
tal 5 is worked elaborately on only one side, and that is the most

Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny 283

damaged side, evidently the front of the capital. The back has de-
fects in the stone, the sculpture is not undercut as elsewhere, and the
figures are not completed — one of them lacks the eyes. On the
contrary, the beautiful vine under the elaborately carved abacus-
face is most appropriate for the side turned toward the altar. The
type of the capital as a whole is sufficiently Corinthianesque to make
it take its place gracefully in the alternation, but sufficiently free to
avoid any suggestion of rigidity in the alternating scheme. It makes
a very satisfying pendant to Capital 4 and takes its place in the
sequence most beautifully.

M. Bréhier remarks that the subject of the capital was probably
suggested by a letter of Pietro Damiani to St Hugh, of which the
monks of Cluny were justly proud. It is given at column 374 of the
Patrologia Latina, volume cxutv. It refers to the monastery as to
the Four Rivers of Paradise. As will be seen, this capital is the icono-
graphic key of the middle group of capitals.

vir. By far the most satisfactory place for the remaining man-
dorla capital (6) is that adjoining the Capital of the Four Rivers (5).
It thus forms a symmetry with Capital 2 (the First Tones) about the
angular mandorla of Capital 4 (the Theological Virtues). This sym-
metry is perforce unrelated to the axis of the apse, which relieves it
of an obviousness that is only too familiar in modern work. The
effect is excellent. The capital has four beautiful female figures,
three of them named by carved inscriptions on the respective man-
dorlas, Prudentia, #stas, Ver. The fourth figure has been called
Grammar and Justice. The fourth inscription was a painted one; it
had escaped notice, but was discovered in 1928 and after deciphering
copied at full size in 1929, by the present writer.

In fact we have a second manifestation of Prudence — the
warner, besides the warrior Prudence already familiar. The figures
are best arranged from all points of view when the warrior Pru-
dence is set toward the altar; and this is the most broken side of
the capital.

The importance of this capital is considerable. The painted in-
scription is not different epigraphically from the others. Perhaps
all were painted to begin with. If so, this one may have been left un-

284 Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny

cut on account of haste to get the capitals into place. The unfinished
back of Capital 4 suggests as much. As was shown in the preceding
article, the apse was not constructed until the carven capitals were
in their places. Again, the fact that there is a painted inscription
points to a calligrapher as the author of the lettering. Since manu-
script lettering is generally ahead of carved lettering, the advanced
character of the epigraphy of the capitals is explained. Both of
these observations strengthen the thesis of the early dating (1088-
1095) of the capitals. A further observation is that the presence of

Figure 3
PAINTED INSCRIPTION ON PRUDENCE-SEASONS CAPITAL

Dat nos monendum Prudentia qid sit agendum.

two Prudences overthrows the too subtle ideologies of those who as-
sume the basis of the iconography of the capitals to be mystical
sequences of four, such as the Four Temperaments, the Four Winds,
the Four Seasons, the Four Liberal Arts, the Four Elements, the
Four Ages, the Four Hours, and so forth. The scheme is simpler
than that: the four Cardinal Virtues are represented on one capital,
the three Theological Virtues on another. One of the Cardinal
Virtues is selected for further illustration to fill out the capital of the
Theological Virtues (4). Another is selected for further illustration
on Capital 6. The double illustration is not illogical, for there is, ac-
cording to Professor Panofsky, a Prudence sequence. Here it is

Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny 285

represented by two subjects, just as two subjects are used to repre-
sent the sequence of the Seasons, or in a larger sense, Nature.

vi. Thus the figures in the mandorlas and those with attributes
or accompanied by inscriptions, fall into three groups: a central one
devoted to the Virtues of man, and of the monastery in particular,
filled out by a group devoted to Nature, set between two capitals
symbolizing divine praises. It is to be noted that the arrangement
here is not strictly symmetrical, and that the idea is a relatively
simple one. Those who are inclined to date the capitals in the
twelfth century naturally look for a subtler and more sophisticated
iconography than that of the eleventh century. Here the early dat-
ing is once more fortified by the results of the new studies.

ix. It may very well be that Capital 7, which remains to be stu-
died, and Capital 3 are simply genre. For Capital 3 (‘Harvester’ [?],
‘Wind ’[?]) this cannot be determined because only one figure re-
mains complete. On Capital 7 considerable thought has led to very
meagre results. The little man with a furry glove is called Winter,
in spite of the fact that the right half of his body is naked, and other
conjectures are no more plausible. Yet a good case can be made for
the capital as devoted to the sports and diversions. The gloved
man thus becomes a boxer or ball-player, robed to make him pre-
sentable in church, or to represent him as a cleric. The students of
the American seminary in Rome play baseball in cassocks, but
mediaeval athletes were almost unclad. The charming nude figure
so gracefully twined with leaves becomes a bather or a swimmer;
the contorted headless figure, a thrower, bowler, or tumbler; and
the simple erect figure, a debater or one walking in meditation. The
capital looks best with the first two figures mentioned turned to-
ward the altar, but the figures are of minor importance. It is proba-
bly quite just to say that the designer of the group of capitals amused
himself with a bit of antiquarianism in Capital 1 (Corinthian) and
varied the Corinthian theme by the little figures among the leaves
in Capitals 3 and 7, while preserving the type as a foil to his more
solemn allegorical capitals.

x. The study proceeded to this result purely on the basis of
internal evidence, without bringing the actual text of Pietro Damiani

286 Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny

into play. The passage is as follows, referring to what the great
churchman had found on his visit to the Monastery of Cluny:

Uidi siquidem paradisum quatuor Euangeliorum fluentis irriguum, imo
totidem spiritualium riuis exuberare uirtutum: uidi hortum deliciarum
diuersas rosarum ac liliorum gratias germinantem, et mellifluas aromatum
ac pigmentorum fragiantias suauiter redolentem, ut de illo uero ualeat
Deus omnipotens dicere: Ecce odor filii mei sicut odor agri pleni, cui bene-
dixit Dominus. — Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxu1Vv, col. 374.

It is evident at once that the middle group of capitals is an ad-
mirable translation into stone of the spirit, the symbolism, and the
letter of this text. The rivers and the virtues are there. The
flowers and sweet herbs are the beautiful fleurons and other leafage
of the capitals; their fragrance is referred to in an inscription of
Capital 6 — Uer primos flores primos producit odores. The choice
of the seasons Spring and Summer comes naturally from the refer-
ence to growing things. The ensemble represents the Abbey itself
and its spiritual beauties. One rarely finds so apt and lovely an
expression in line and surface of such beautiful thoughts and words.

The letter was addressed to St Hugh of Semur and had a unique
significance for him as a benediction on his life’s work. It is more
natural that he should have used it as the basis of an iconographical
scheme than that a successor, a generation later, should have done
so. The text therefore reinforces the idea that the iconography was
of a free and early type, fortifies the interpretation arrived at inde-
pendently from internal evidence, and strengthens the thesis of
early dating for the capitals.

x1. Capital 8 (the Last Tones) seems to be placed by its inscrip-
tions; at any rate it is sensible to have the first quarter of the in-
scription on the diagonal toward the nave, and this gives a very
acceptable arrangement of the figures as seen from both apse and
ambulatory.

This capital is a Cinderella. It is planned to restore and complete
the designs of the series of capitals, using the Fogg Museum casts;
and Capital 8 was chosen as the first. Copies of the single extant
volute were attached to the broken corners, and the missing abacus
was supplied by one studied from the back of Capital 5. These ad-

The faces re Presented »

Capital 1. Capital 2.

Corinthian The First Four Tones of Plainsong The W

PLATE Ia SEQUENCE OF THE AMBULATORY CAPITALS OF THE ABBEY OF CLUNY

robably looked toward the Altar. The scale of the re production is about 1:17, the same as that used for the transe pt capitals in SPECI

Capital 4. Capital 5 Capital 6.

The Theological Virtues and Justice The Four Rivers of Paradise Prudence, Summer, Spr
i

Casts OF THE CLUNY CAPITALS ARRANGED IN SEQUENCE IN THE CourT OF THE FoGcG Museum, CAMBRIDGE
The original intervals and radius were used in placing the casts.

Rocce

transept capitals in SpecuLUM, IV, 302 ff.

Capital 6 Capital 7.

Prudence, Summe:, Spring Sports and Diversions (?) or genre

a, CAMBRIDGE

Boecker phot

Loury phot

Capital 8.

The Last Four Tones of Plainsong

wr genre

Ambulatory Capitals of Cluny 287

ditions transformed the ineffective broken design into one of amaz-
ing force, originality, and beauty. The stems of the volutes, as seen
from below, form behind the figures a clever variant of the man-
dorlas of Capitals 2, 4, and 6. This continues the alternation and
serves also to distinguish Capital 8 from the genre capitals num-
bered 3 and 7.

It is worth noting, moreover, that the swing of the volutes is sur-
prisingly like that on several figured capitals from Frémista, Leén,
and Iguacel, published by Mr Porter in Spanish Romanesque Sculp-
ture (Paris: Pegasus, 1928; plates 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31). Since these
sculptures are older than, or contemporary with, the apse of Cluny,
they may be studied with profit both by those who do, and those
who do not believe that the Cluny capitals were sculptured before
1095. The style is not the same, but the idea that figures in high re-
lief were not used on capitals before 1100 is contradicted by these
examples. Mr Whitehill’s important and still unpublished dis-
coveries at Santo Domingo de Silos tend to clarify the relation of
that important work to Cluny. The most acceptable precursor for
the existing transept design at Cluny is to be found in the Castle
Chapel at Loarre in Spain. Clearly the connection between Cluny

and Spain was by no means a tenuous one. As a matter of fact
Spain can no more be left out of account than the north, from
which came Hézelon of Liége, architect of the church. Writers in
general have failed to recognize the international and synthesizing
character of the great monument at Cluny, and French writers in
particular, by forcing the capitals into a regular system of French
development, have mistaken both their date and their significance.

Harvarp UNIVERSITY

THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF MEDIAEVAL
LATIN POETS

Br WALTER BRADBURY SEDGWICK

T seems a pity that the student of Mediaeval Latin should still be

in the plight of the classical scholars of the Renaissance, and
constantly have to make his own text as he reads. Much unneces-
sary expenditure of time (and temper) is caused by the endeavour to
make sense of an obviously corrupt text. Editors are not altogether
to blame — especially in the case of an editio princeps: they quite
properly assume that it is their first duty to publish the results of
their researches as early as possible. Moreover, there is always the
risk of obliterating an important manuscript reading by a super-
ficial and obvious ‘correction,’ while even the errors of manuscripts
may of course be instructive.

But the fact remains that very often editors of mediaeval texts
are little interested in textual questions, being palaeographers,
historians, or anything rather than textual critics, while their readers
are usually too occupied with their own studies to devote much time
to textual questions. Hence it is that texts are too often printed and
reprinted (sometimes with a fairly elaborate critical apparatus)
with unintelligible, ungrammatical, and unmetrical readings by the
score — and never an obelus to warn the reader. It really is too bad
that Hart’s two Pyramus poems, published in 1889, should have
been twice reprinted by eminent scholars like Edmond Faral and
Paul Lehmann (in 1913 and 1927) without any attempt to remove
or even point out the grossest errors.

Scholars who are trained textual critics usually leave mediaeval
texts severely alone, but there are exceptions. For instance, Haupt
more than once exercised his critical skill on mediaeval poets (some-
times corrupting them by too rigid adherence to Classical usage),
while Havet applied his acumen to the newly discovered poet Mahieu
de Boulogne.

Pending the arrival of new Havets and Haupts much might be
done for mediaeval texts, especially the poets, if scholars would print

288

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 289

without unnecessary padding such corrections as are bound to occur
to them if they are bent on extracting sense out of the texts they read.
The problem is somewhat different from that offered by Classical
texts, as the manuscripts are usually not far removed from the auto-
graph: on this see L. Havet, Manuel de Critique Verbale (Paris:
Hachette, 1911), §§ 654 ff. As Havet says, ‘fautes banales’ here ac-
quire some importance for method: he quotes as examples the inter-
change in a manuscript of about 1300 on n and u; im, mi, nu, un;
e,r, t; e and o. To these I may add a few examples from my own

observation.

Confusion of letters: s < f: passim, e. g. Wright’s Anglo-Lat. Sa-
tirical Poets, 11, 251, 1. 5 Salerna for Falerna; satis for fontis,
Lehmann (cited below) p. 60, 1. 344.

el <d:clarus for durus, Henr. Sept. 482 (and Poetria Noua 802?);
clara for data, Ps.-Hildebert, Excid. Troi., 1. 1.
h <n: hominis for nominis, Wright, 1, 251, 8.
¢ <t: conto for toto (or tanto) Architr., p. 244, 1. 15, Wright; sic for
sit, Wright 11, 168, 6; et quis for ecquis, Wright, 1, 206, 4 up
(i.e. from the bottom); teli for celi, Wright, u, 208, 3 up;
Orcus for (h)ortus, Faral, Arts Poét., p. 128, v. 54; intus for
incus, Laborintus 917.
esorem for esocem, Brunellus, p. 108, 1. 4, Wright.
metet for meret, Adolf. Vien. 306; ferte for ferre, Wright, u,
171; censere for censete, Wright, 11, 214, 15; secura for secuta,
Anticl. 1, 419; arcere for arcete, Wright, 11, 128, 23; clara for
data above.
r <v(u): wocaret for uocavit? Wright, 11, 167, 8; rewtuescere for re-
utrescere, ibid., 11, 216; rerum for uerum, tbid., 11, 299, 10
(cf. H. Sept. 670?)
t <v (u): teste for ueste, Lehmann, p. 61, 1. 390.
n <v (u): moueant for moneant, ibid., p. 63, 1. 4.
a <e: passim, e. g. Wright, u, 167, 5 up, qua for que (quae);
Brunel., p. 39, 5 up (Wright) amica for amice.
u <a: furius for furias, Wright, 11, 65, 2; sociam for socium,
tbid., p. 943.

290 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

Transposition of letters: ampla for palma, Faral, op. cit., p. 156, 18,
v.2; moderat for mordeat, Anticlaud. 1, 339; palmas for lampas ?
Adolf. Vien. 326; uenerunt for neuerunt, Brunel. 66. 3, 97.10 up
(Wright): cf. Laborintus 608; inueniat for ni ueniat, Lehmann,
p. 57, 1. 214.

Pronunciation: soft c as s: sensus for census, Wright, 11, 239, 5 up;
sensura for censura, Wright, 1, 231, ult.; census for sensus, Anticl.
1, 144; seu for ceu, Brunel. 68, 8; sit for scit, Wright, m1, 204, 8 up;
recipissent for resipiscent, ibid., 11,207, 3 up. Final d and ¢ confused:
e. g. inquid (passim); quod for quot, Wright, 11, 238, 8.

Classical reminiscences sometimes help: e. g. in Anticl. ii, 304,
l. 11, the imitation of Sidonius, Ep. iv, 3 shows we must read Sollius
for Soldius. Ibid., 1, 288, 1. 2 up, is a reminiscence of Ov., Met. ii.
14, hence we must read diuersa for aduersa. Lehmann, p. 57, |. 208;
ambrosiam may be restored for umbrosam from Ov., Met. iv.215.

In attempting to emend a text of the twelfth to fourteenth cen-
turies, we must first decide on general grounds what to expect. On
the whole poets of the twelfth century may be expected to be well
trained in the mechanical part of their art, and to show the influence
of the schools of Northern France, the teaching of which is repres-
ented by Faral’s Arts Poétiques: of these Matthew of Vendéme, in
theory and practice, is of fundamental importance. So thoroughly
was he studied that many poems (e. g. the Alda of William of Blois)
are in style indistinguishable from his own work. In this school of
poetry, then, we may expect perfect fluency and mastery of versifica-
tion, ingenuity of expression, sequence of thought and coherence of
language. False quantities are extremely rare, though on the model
of Christian poets some words have unclassical scansion, and in cer-
tain cases the prosody taught in the Middle Ages differs from that of
classical times. A verse which is simply incorrect is almost, if not
quite, unheard of.

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries a decadence set in, and
much incompetent work was produced: teaching seems to have de-
teriorated, even largely to have ceased. We cannot always expect the
smoothness and ingenuity of the twelfth century. German poets in
particular, who now become active, seem to me often clumsy and

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 291

awkward. False quantities become commoner (though still rare),
but a verse which absolutely will not scan is still almost incon-
ceivable.

By about 1300 the collapse is complete, and we may look for al-
most any nonsense, though even now metrically faulty lines are very
rare. In Lehmann’s book we see specimens of all stages. I do not
suppose Matthew and Baudri (first half of the twelfth century) were
much better poets than the authors of the De Somnio and the poem
(No. v) about Venus, but they knew their trade, which the later
pair (ca. 1300?) emphatically did not. Between these extremes stand
the remaining three Pyramus poems (xm cent?): a and 6 have
thyme, c not; c is probably earlier — it stands nearer to the tradition
of the schools (cf., for example, Il. 58, 69).

For the rest the ordinary rules of textual criticism must be applied,
and in particular, causes of corruption carefully classified, as so many
texts depend on a single untrustworthy manuscript; e.g. in the manu-
script of Matthew’s Pyramus (Lehmann, pp. 31 ff.), we note the
tendency to mechanical repetition of syllables (see the notes on
ll. 93, 108, 132): this helps to correct ]. 132, and denotes corruption
in ll. 1, 2, 13, 74, 98, 102, 114; cf. uultus in Il. 138, 141, 142; mortificare
in |. 148; compactente loco in 172 may be an unconscious reminiscence
of ]. 34. The intelligence of the scribe of H in Lehmann, pp. 35ff. is
shown by his writing en for est in Il. 31, 37, 50, 79.

Finally if editors would pay more attention to punctuation, the
reader’s task would be considerably lightened. Wright is a great
sinner in this respect, but Lehmann is nearly as bad. I deal below
with a few of the more difficult cases, but I pass over hundreds in
silence.

Wright’s Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets of the
Twelfth Century

(Rolls Series, 1872)

The following emendations are offered for what they are worth,
with the object of saving the readers’ time and contributing towards
amore readable text. The texts vary greatly in purity: some few are
hopeless, others require few corrections. I may perhaps be allowed

292 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

to say that the result of a somewhat minute reading of these authors
has been to increase my respect for their intellectual powers, while
extinguishing what little I had for their poetic inspiration. In al-
most every text we are justified in expecting good Mediaeval Latin,
good sense, and logical sequence: it is unjust to our authors to think
them capable of writing mere rubbish; with the exception of men like
Serlo they were highly cultivated stylists.

I have not as a rule troubled to note all the obvious changes which
the reader can make currente calamo (amat for amet, etc.), nor changes
of punctuation where the sense was not seriously affected, nor indi-
cated the very numerous cases where I prefer rejected readings: this
effects a considerable saving of space; for the same purpose I simply
print Wright’s reading followed by my own conjecture, in cases of
doubt followed by one or two marks of interrogation, without com-
ment.

VOLUME I
Speculum Stultorum (or Brunellus)

The variants of manuscript B are very often right, perhaps nearly
always, apart from lapsus calamt, e.g. in the notes pp. 74. 10, 75. 1,
76. 1, 2, (6?), 77. 2, 5, 78. 4, 79. 2, 4, 6, 9, and especially p. 80. Page
11, 1. 11 mdgis: nugis. 16.3 oculis: maculis? 28.3 comma after minus,
semicolon after habemus. 29. 10 note uespes = vespae: cf. 1.19; B
twice spells it waspes (an Anglicism?). 29.16 quaeque tuta minus:
quoque minus tuta, or, better, quae, quo tuta minus [est, eo] fortius ...
33. 11 up, lucis: lut(e)ris, with p. 33.6 up, flamine: stamine, with B,
P. 39.5 up, amica: amice. 40 ult. num: sum. 42.8 up, haec est noua
regula. 44.5 up, mercarum: marcarum. Pp. 43-44. I cannot under-
stand why dédecus is confined to these pages. Are they interpolated?
Elsewhere the word is always rightly scanned. In 43.2 up we could
read dedecus ut breue sit: 44.7 dedecus hoc sit, with P: 44.9 dedecus est:
but 44.3 I cannot emend.? 56.15 awe: auet?? 57.3 onerant <que>
cibaria mensas. 58.3 potus (toti): poti? 60.12 Iam[que] bobus . .

1 In Architrenius, vi, viii (p. 332.6 up, in Wright), stamen tamen Atropos aeui rumpil,
the editions vary between flamen aeui and stamen alui—a notable instance of mediaeval

editing.
2 Perhaps in dominum nostrum (papam is a gloss) si dedecus usque redundat.

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 293

uergit: uertit. 65.10 up, petito: petitum. 66.13 longo mea stamina
Parcae uenerunt: longe . . . neuerunt (cf. 97. 10 up). 67.6 et: ut. 67.7
cur: cum. 67.9 huic: hinc. 68.8 up, seu: ceu. 74.1 conduzxere: condixere
(P). 75.14 up, inde: unda?? 87.11 laxant: laxent. 88, n.5: B right, if
venerunt is changed to neuerunt (cf. 66.13). 99.4 luat (luit, B): linit
(from linire), ‘defiles.’ 99.13 auarum: auari, subject of delirant.
103.12 inarmatas. 105.8. B right, with comma only after mihi.
108.6 anipitrem: ancipitrem, cf. p. 110, n.8. 108.4. esorem: esocem
(Pliny). 108.14 mozx: hora; quod est: breuis?? cf. hora breuis, 1. 12.
108 ult. haec: hic? 113.3 up, canem: perhaps cadum. 117.9 auidus:
auibus. (in 10, P is right). 118, 11 up, proderés ??. 120.11 nolunt:
nolint. 123.7 uerna[que]. 126.8 redderit: redderet. 127.2 up, uigent:
possibly rident (or uernant). 131.6 up, omni: esse, with B. 131.7
omni: omine? 132.10 effractus: effetus? 134.6 aliis: aliter. 137.14
up, tu autem, sign of farewell, cf. Voigt on Ysengrim, 1, 927. 137.13
up, Dryano: Dryane.

ARCHITRENIUS

The text is corrupt, and complicated by Wright’s bad punctuation.
P. 240 |. 9. read wenativa morae, uix inceptura quod ... (in |. 7. del.
comma after nutricia). 240.4 up, del. comma. 240.3 up, fame =
famae. 240 ult., del. full stop. 241. 6ff. ‘not tempted by glory which
crowns toil, nor by rewards, by which toil learns to become pleasant’
241.11 tristitiis: tristities. 4 up, uersum: uersu. 242.11 multum:
mutum? 243.11 up, seruum: feruens? 244.4 the full stop should be
after tulit. 244.12 up: the second hic should be haec? 245.4 up,
floreri: florere. 245.14 (down) weris: cineris. 246. 6f. read ‘et, quo
utdet Anglia, reddi poscit inoccidui commissum luminis usum’: asks
that the use of the unfailing light, by which England sees, be
restored: usus commissus)(mancipio datus. 247.8 up, momenta:
monumenta? ? 249f. The information is mostly from Pliny, H. N.
vii, but whence the queer story about the mother of the Gracchi?
249.3. coniectura: coniunctura or commiatura. 250, 8 up, trata Bythia
should be genitive. 250 ult. miseris lethos: misero fletu. 252.2
euicet: ericit. 252.6 circumeat: circummeat. 252.9 planos: planis.
252 ult. possibly locum for loci, and comma before coruscat, not after.

294 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

253.8 del. full stop. 253.13 juncto: justo? 255.13 up, del. full stop.
256 ult. auarae: auare; comma after addit. 258.7 comma before, not
after dulce. (As I could only borrow these volumes for a limited
period, I wasted no more time on this dull, turgid, and obscure
poem).
VOLUME II
Godefredi Epigrammata

These are singularly feeble: several of them are beyond me, but I
offer one or two suggestions. Ep. vi.1 /aus must stand for the vocative
of a proper name, e.g. Lause. 20.2 ita uelis: I caue sis follows the
ductus litterarum. 21 dum . . . uenor all belongs to the protasis.
34.2 del. commas, and put one after aliis. 40 is unintelligible. Per-
haps we should keep the reading of C, changing haud to hoc, 62.1
nonius humor: we expect roscidus. 65.2 furius: furtas. 91.1 semicolon
at end. 94.2 soctam: socitum. 115.4 read ludum defendis? uertere,
liber eris (pun on liber). 156.2 et: ut. 157 refers to Publilius Syrus
64 (see Skeat’s note to Chaucer’s Melibeus, C.T., B 3049).

Henrici Epigrammata

P. 163. Pref. 1.7 ststante: sis tantae. verse 5 refrigerent: refigerent.
verse 13, comma after wersus, not before. P. 164.12 sit: fit. 165.3
pergamenta: purgamenta. 165.13 up, hi: hic. 166, ad Zetam |. 4
quaequae: quemquam. 167.7 testa: caenoque or turbaque?? 167.8
uocaret: uocauit? 167.11 up, faustu: fastu? 167.0 up, somnia qua:
somnia; quae. 168.3 put the semicolon after clerus and continue the
speech to |. 6. Penultimate line of poem male for mala. Last line
iustis: iustus et. P. 168, Epitaph, 1.6 sic: sit? P. 171, de Auaritia:
read quisquis auare uixit, without comma. de Zoilo, |. 1 hominis:
nominis. L. 2 ferte: ferre. de Cont. Visib 1.3 mecum: tecum. 7 quaeras:
quaeris. 9 one question mark only, after miror. p. 172.2 the comma
should come after rerum. 13 punctuate, quis uilia? 19 del. et after
decet. 27 parate pingues, 1.e. ‘make your owners fat’; del. comma.
P. 173, 6-9 is the advice of the soul (in 9 del. comma after nobilitas),
11-16 of the body (in 15 semicolon before and after duplicasti). 10
up; the second raperes should be rapis.

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 295

ALEXANDER NeckaM: de Vita Monachorum

P. 177.9 up, aestimat: aestuat (illa). 179.13 speculo: specula.
180.7 up, permanet: praeterit? 182.2 si: sed. 182.13 sic: dic. 182.19
est: esse. 183.8 substitute comma for full stop. 183.11 forma: fama.
184.11 up, possunt: possint. 185.14 ingenium: ingenuum. 186.6
comma after mtror, not carnis. 187.10 up, namque: nam quae.
188.7 nec: non. 188.9 facte: facies. 188.15 intra: intrat. 188.16 nolo:
uolo. 188.18, add et after monita. 188.23 arcere: arcete. 189.3 a
syllable is lacking, perhaps sibi after quantum. 189.7 up, aewum:
foedum? 189.5 up lege: nece? 189 ult. et quis: ecquis. 190.5 est: erit.
190.13f. add semicolon after addere; quicquam: quicquid (= ‘every-
thing’); nouwm: noutt. 191.2, insert question mark after ad quid.
191.5, add -que after agricolae. 191.4 up similis: simili. 192.3 si
.... conspicis: sic... .conspicit ?? 192.13 up del. comma. 193.10
sic: uiz. 193.13 magnus: Magnus. 194.2 up tot arborum: arbustorum ?
(tot from an interlinear correction of arborum). 195.17 up haeret:
hebet. 196.10 up del. comma and put comma for full stop. 196.9 up
manent: manet. 198.6 up, afficiat: afficiet. 198.4 up, -que: quoque.
199.2 redonatae: retro natae?? 200.5 up, tacitus: tectos. 200.6 up,
si: sed. Gualonis Inuectio. 202.4 for first nomtna, read crimina,
203.6 up acuunt, acuit. 203.4 up contigit: colligit. 204.20 up fit:
sit. 204.15 up Odardus: tardus. 204.11 up dura: durae. 204.8 up
sit: scit. 205.12 refutant: recusant? 205.16 colant: celant. 205.17
semicolon after minus. In 205.11 up, as at 205.6 up and 207 massa
seems to mean ‘bulk.’ 205.8 up quis: quid. 206.2 qui propria:
transpose. 206.11 offerrt: offer et. 206.12 satagat = ‘satisfy’: (sat
agat?), triformae, triforme 206.15 provectus: profectus. 206.22 illum:
illud. 206.4 up estis: escis. 207.3 sunt bona: transpose. 207.12 up
nam: nunc. 207.3 up recipissent: resipiscent (interesting for pronun-
ciation).

Serlo

P. 208.1 qui: quam. 208.4 iuvant; utuunt. 208.6 omnis: omnes;
comprimet: comprimat. 208.11 up, parens: patris. 208.3 up Teli:
coeli. 209.18 up accendere: attendere. 209.10 up sancti: sacra?
210.1 tales... . monachales: talis ....monachalis. 210.2 mark of

296 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

exclamation after pestis: insert haec after facit. 210.34 transpose
qui and quod. 210.5 the reference is to the black habit of monks.
210.9 up studuerunt: statuerunt (the whole is irony). 211.5 up et:
ut. 211 ult. accipiunt: accipiant. 212.2 put the comma after suarum.
212.4 comma after erramus, colon after tpsi. The last six lines are a
different poem (epitaph).

P. 213. Anon. 10 up tera talem: timeat tales? 213.9 up donetur:
donet te. 213.3 up, del. full stop. 214.15 censere: censete. 214.12 up
burburus immitis = Marbod., pp. 86 and 92 (ed. Ropartz, Rennes,
n.d). 214.3 up, add fur after petitt (or meruit?). The reference is to
the crucifixion. 215.17 up, semicolon after /iceat: comma after in-
quinat, 216.7 up reutuescere: reuirescere (ficos = ‘piles,’ Mart. i. 66).
217.3 mélestia, as Marbod., p. 92 (ed. cit.), J. Garl. Syn. 328 (ed.
Leyser) — from méles. 217.15 up possibly at should be inserted
before sine: but facit seems corrupt (sancit?).

Hueco SorovaGensis: Versus.

P. 222.3 unicuique: sua cuique 224.10 up, mentitur: metitur. 226.5
perueniat: praeueniat. 226.11 up, cathedrans: cathedra, or — as?
226.6 up, mouens: monens. est 228, 11, del. comma after dives, semi-
colon after egents.

Anon. p. 231 ult. sensura: censura.

Serlo: p. 232.8 up, mundi: mundus? 234.17 se: st 234.9 up, pura:
cura. 234.8 up, de: et. 235.12 paxillum: pauxillum. 236.8 hoc: haec.
236.21 luditis: ludis. 236.5 up, cordi (end of line): sordi. 237.10
laxat: laxas; del. comma. 237.16 ditat (at end): uitat. 237.2 up,
nolli: molli. The missing portions may be huic .. . inmiti...
hune. 238.3 quod: quot. 238.8 del. comma. 238.4 up, pedis: pede.
(comma before regni, not after. 239.7 ne quis: nequis 239.8 del.
comma after quantum (uoluens is strange: ualeas would suit the
sense). 239.14 up; genitoris: genitor. 12 and 9 up. del. full stops.
6 up, full stop at end. 5 up, sensu: censu. 240, 1-2 semic. after egens,
query after deteriores. 240.10 ne: et? (del. comma after ago.) 240.12
haec: has? 241.4 up, precatio: praedatio? 243.6 properautt: properant.
243.11 recessus: census?? (‘wealth’). 244.9, del. ef. 244.13 up,

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 297

postrema sonare: post rem resonare 245.4 up; lam nova? 246.15 qua:
quam. 246.9 up, semic. after sordida. 246.5 up, manserunt: reman-
serunt (or quae for qua). 247.10 up, non mihi: nam mea? 248.11
pugnat is: pugnans. 249.12 hac: hic. 249.12 up, O armis: carminis.
250.14 haec: hoc. 250.3 up, pecte: pectore.

Inuectio in Gillebertum is about the most corrupt text I know:
many lines (including the first) are beyond me altogether.

251.3 suus: sitts. 251.5 Salerna: Falerna. 251.7 uernus: uacuus,
eam: tam. 251.8 formam: sortem? 251.11 del. full stop; for conterat
read concutit. 251.13 praestit: praefert? 251.7 up, taculatori: tocula-
tori. 251, 2-4 up, are beyond my powers (in 2 up, for dicel rhyme
suggests decem: cf. bis trina above, and bis senos below). 252.7 uero:

Nero. 252.10 quam: qua. 252.14 qualis et nepisti: quae concepisti
(no stop at end), ef. J. Bridlington in Wright’s Pol. Poems and Songs
(Rolls Series, 1859) 1.47 ‘stercora concepit, peperit quae ventre re-
cept.” 252.15 Musa te: te Musa. 252.17 up, muneri: moneri. 252.16
up, sero: scio. 252.15 up, opus crepis: os obstrepit. 252.13 up, del.

full stop. 252.12 up, cogeris: cogens. 252.11 up, uer ima: uis cura.
252.10 up, comma after censura, not aequi: read sorbens nostra et tua?
252.4 up, offendo mando: offis donando?? 252,3 up, f ... : faece?
alternorum: alienorum. 253.1 tonitrua. 253.8 sperneres: spernere,
comma after patrum. 253.15 potestatis: pietatis. 253.16 movet:
tuvat? ? 253.19 mones sic enutritt: monet sic enutrire. 253.11 up,
semicolon after uiduamque. 253.6 up, homicida: homicidia. 253.4
up, guies esset, mentem tibi: quaesisset messem mihi. 253 ult. inuasis-
set: nunc urxisset.

Anticlaudianus

Bk 1. P. 276, & up, pingunt: fingunt. p. 278, 11 up, excepto: ex-
cepta? ? (nom. sing.) 284, 4 f., transfer semicolon to materiae; for
neutri read neutra. 285, ult. monet: mouet. 288.2 up, aduersa: diuersa
(= Ov., Met. ii.14).

Bk u. P. 296.5 quis: quid. 297.2 quaeritur: queritur. 299.13 functus:
fructus 299.10 rerum: uerum, with full stop-at end, not at I. 11.
302.12 and 14 diuidat, uenrat. 302.8 up, fauorem: laborem (question
ends here?). 302 ult., del. semicolon. 303.6 up, sense seems to de-

298 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

mand quam for quid. 303.4 up, Milo: Myro? 304.11 ut Sodius im-
plicat: read Sollius (Sid. Apollinaris, of whom it is an imitation,
Ep. iv, 3). 305.14 praescribit: proscribit. 309.8 Dindimus, an inter-
locutor in Hugh of St Victor’s dialogues (name from legendary his-
tory of Alexander?) 309.15 ramor, is of course rumor: oberret, aberret ?

Bk m1. P. 313.9 up, hispide: hispida. 315.6 up, picturata: pictura.
319.12 cadit: cedit. 319.15 operosae: operose. 322.11 praefecta:
praedicta? as in parallel passage 308.14 eleufuga: see commentators
on Chaucer’s Troilus, iii. 933 (it is the pons asinorum, not Eucl., i. 47
as Chaucer implies). 320, 4ff. artifices (‘geometers’) is antecedent
of qui, tractus . . . pondera is object of claudentes, aera . . . terras of
tuentur. 8 ff. comma after orbem, not tractus.

Bk tv. P. 1.4 del. comma after degenerat. 331.10 alli: illis? facies
is queer: series?? 332.3 superum should apparently be superam.
333.4 Pyrous, i.e. Pyroeis (Ov., Met. 2.153). 333.3 up, uino: Iuno
(obviously the giver of the horse, as Jupiter of the first). 336.7
praedicto iugalt: the genitive seems better. 336.8 minus: nimis.
338.6 nubilia: nubila.

Bk v. P. 349.10 up instantia should be fem. sing. hence read
refellit with B, M (Sprcuoum, vol. 11 (1927), p. 341, 1. 5). 359.3 up,
nutu: uultu ??

Bk vi. P. 366.11 elata: the variants point to clauata (‘striped’).
369.1 medicinam: medicinae (posse is a noun). 369.13 up, usu specu-
lante is abl. abs.; del. comma. 369.14 up, fulgens: fugiens (masc.)??
370 ult., no pause between Ch. ii and iii. 371.12 up, excepti:
exceptum?? 375.10 faciem (que). 376.13 regati: legali? 379.13 con-
tempta, i.e. contenta. 379.6 up, exempta: exempla. 379.2 up, Tudith:
Dauidae? 381.2 up, manus.

Bk vit. P. 387.1 desertum: deiectum? 387.12 up, nimit: nimio? 387
ult. nostrae [Diones]: perhaps taetrae or the like. 396 ult. alternat:
alternant? 396.2 propinqua. 397.5 parit: perit? 398.3 unde: unda
(del. comma after gignit).

Bk vit.P. 399.11 ipsa illa: read tsta. 410.13 dat: dant.

Bk rx. P. 414. ult. semicolons after fustes, rapit, siti. 414.7 up,
argumenta: hardly armamenta; cf. 420.14 up, 415.11 up, coecus; add:
coetus (i.qg. omnis facultas and conciues below). 417.2 B has right

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 299

reading. 417.14 pro Natura: pro nata? cf. Ch. v. 1.2; but B, M may
well be right (prona tamen). 418.11 up, uarvo: uano. 419.11 up,
uulnus: uultus. 420.9 metitur: mentitur.

In the following suggestions I do not claim to have dealt with
every difficulty: in the case of Adolphus the text is so corrupt and
the author so ignorant that many passages seem quite hopeless.
Still it is time something was done towards removing the most
flagrant corruptions in mediaeval Latin texts. It is to be hoped that
future editors will follow Marigo’s example in indexing the chief
peculiarities of their authors.

Henrici Septimellensis Elegia '
ed. Marigo, Draghi: Padua, 1926.

Line 85 cupidas: read rapidas. 136 ablato: perhaps alato, taking
remige as ‘oarage’ (after Virgil’s remzgto alarum), cf. 1. 694; but see
SPECULUM, 111 (1928), 370. 189 unquam: read tnquam. 314 caluis,
edd. calphos: a chess term, usually Alphilus or Alpinus. Read Al-
philis, omitting et? 398 insere: perhaps ingere, and reticenda of edd.

408 f. nescts, ferts are incredible: the other really false quantities,
e.g. udigti and péra are much more excusable (Il. 242, 838). Perhaps
we should read nescia (elision in second half of pent., as at 502), and
tu furis atque feris in 409, a very uncertain line (with meque for
meue?). 482 clarus: read durus. 493 abest: perhaps aues. 498
uetat: perhaps negat (sc. lex). 502 Fortuna: read Fortunae. 531
multaque: perhaps multane, interrogatively. 654 Marigo glosses
tenut . . . omine as filo, but is this possible? perhaps Henry wrote
stamine (or nemine): or omine might = ‘rumor,’ ‘leuis aura.’ 670
uerus: perhaps rerum. 681 hardly right. Perhaps cum retulisti,
taking retulisti with both unde and cum: ‘Why did you say (I re-
member well your saying)?’ 683 hec: hoc 685 ueniamus is incredible
and ill-attested: perhaps puro deuenimus, or non puro v. auro (the
best MSS have uenimus). 724 ius pia: read impia. 870 adoratus:
misprint for odoratus? 908 seque crumenat amor: a very strange

1 See now Karl Strecker’s important article in Studi Medievali 11 (1929) 110-133.

300 =The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

phrase; I don’t know if deque crumenat is any better; tmesis is com-
mon in Henry, and compare deremitat (905). It is barely possible
that orbiculat was derived by him from orbus: ‘love blinds and robs
you.’

The following changes of punctuation seem to me improvements:
166 ‘pauper .. . tacet’ in inverted commas: ‘If the adage (Ov.,
Fast. i.218) pauper ubique tacet is true.’ (Henry puns on iacet). 197
put comma before dira, not after. 334 comma after suscipiam. 5438
delete commas: (ignare = ‘ignorantly’). 759 del. comma after est.

The following variants seem to me highly probable:

169 inititum (usual mediaeval scansion). 299 hoc. 232 meritis. 478
aspis was perhaps Henry’s own spelling. 504 limen. 522 non, vel
uiz. 583 suffdcat (or sustulit.) 651 Macedum. 714 ingenuam talem
(opposed to witiata), 719 nunc (Leyser)restores metre and adds point.
759 duplicat (cf. 1. 529): décuplat has no real parallel in H. 770 ad-
uersis (Leyser). 780 turpe is a gloss: read non (cf. Hor. Ep. I, ii. 3).
797 arcum (hardly hamum). 950 read insidie; sit.

Adolfus Viennensis

reprinted (in part) from Leyser by Jakob Ulrich,
Lat. Novellistik des Mittelalters, Leipzig, 1906

Line 20 hanc puram pure ne luat (‘defile’ cf. 1. 394) hanc alius. 29
(ex) clamat. 35 varia mulier mala. 58 nec: read nunc. 86 omit cum.
90 (super) exaltando 106 eis hebeat. 129 inuenies: iuvenis. 175 est et.
177 mala: read male. 192 precanti: peccanti. 209 hic uetulaeque
graut dicit. 215 the semicolon should come after securus. 216 uolo:
read ualeo. 219 delete comma after est (‘eats’). 223 widit. 236
comma after poenarum. 258 uulpida. 274 diem: read die. 277 per-
haps omne; dat huic tlla: pronouns as in |. 303 f. 297 uel: read uelut.
299 reseraque. 302 ut patre a summo. 306 metet: read meret (cf. 1. 301).
307 refert (as 1. 273). 309 aspis. 322 haec: sponso. 326 palmis:
hardly lampas (propius in 325) 335 scelus et. 351 Tunc uir eam
nimium precibus orautt amicis (for the lengthening at fourth ictus cf.
H. Sept., 509, 511, etc.). 361 perhaps feruere uagari lena ac turpra
(or feruereque; cf. 1. 252: or feruescere lena: amidst A’s erratic uses of
et and que it is difficult to come to a decision). 367 (dum) stultus.

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 301

P. LeumMann, Pseudo-antike Literatur des Mittelalters
(Teubner: Leipzig, 1927)

These notes were finished in December 1927. I now find that Karl
Strecker in Hermes, txu, ii (1927), 243 ff. deals minutely with the
third Pyramus poem (pp. 52 ff.), and anticipates many of my con-
jectures. He also kindly communicates the readings in the other
poems marked ‘K. 8.’

I. Pyramus and Thisbe, by Matthew of Vendéme, pp. 31 ff., 1. 1,
amoris: erroris. 2 insanus: insanas? (Il. 1, 2, being Leonines, are
spurious, K. S$.) 13 dissimilis: discrimine. 17 comma after eget, not
sensus (degenerare, ‘belie their nature,’ as 1]. 23, etc., see SPECULUM,
1 (1928), 373. 25 pueritia is scarcely credible in Matthew: perhaps
puerilt labitur aeuo (in Venerem puerts iam labitur annus, tus habet in
iuvenes, K. S.). 37 cui: qua? 40 comma after, not before, murmura.
62 risus, K. S. 64 f. Matthew’s precept and practice demand stop at
end of pentameter. 65 perhaps tgnis uterque furit: sic ledit, leditur,
urit.... but it is obscure to me. 69 petit: petunt; no comma after
solacia. 73 periussa, etc.: perhaps perit ipsa licencia uocis. 74 rimat:
uacat? 77 male: mala. 91 nec: hac. 97 f. del. comma after fidelis,
and read femineam (but fraudem is suspicious). 99 witro: uitri
(facundia, K.S.). 101 armatis K.S. 102 sanguinis: sanguine. 103
ferinos deuitat, K.S. 114 accelerare: anticipare. 117 Tisbesque. 120
solet propheta: invert. 127 una: im(m)o, a favourite word with
Matthew. 132 rubor: cruor. 133 f. timore, tuwene: timorem, tuuent.
138 uultus: mentis, rather than mu(l)tus. 140 curat (!): twuat, with
MS. 141 labellum: labello. 142 uultibus: fletibus. 152 numina:
lumina. 163 ansa: ausa (see SPECULUM, 111 (1928), 372). 172 com-
paciente loco = 1.34: perhaps flebilibus compatiendo malis (or modis,
i.e. elegiac verse). In lines 37, 68, 77, 99 (uitri), 102, 117, 120, 134,
142, 152 Strecker’s conjecture agrees with mine.

II a. Dietrich’s Pyramus, pp. 36 ff. (E. Faral, Sources Lat. des
Contes... . du Moyen Age (Paris: Champion, 1913), pp. 41 ff., who
often offers the better text), e.g. Il. 6, 9... 191, 208, 225, 248,
250, 253, 266, 283, 291, etc. 1.33; read ut stultos ego subticeam (‘not
to mention’) sunt qui sapientes. 51 annos per pueriles, K. S. 53

302 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

unmetrical: read gui dum transcendunt annos ambo pueriles. 75
Faral right. 81 unmetrical: read quod et unica? 86 meditansque:
meditans quae (i.e. meditans quae uerbula reddat). 96 read te sequor
assensum praebens spacit breuioris. 114 Leyser’s conjecture gives
the Virgilian but unlikely qui amore: the MS. reading will do, with
Faral’s tortantur (hii quod or quot? K.S.) 124 tur is perhaps the end
of an obliterated sanguis: other MSS have stopgaps. Faral’s explana-
tion will not hold water (see Ovid, Met. iv, 51 ff., and the other ver-
sions). 127 udtiua (!): nociua with MS. H. 147 fauit discedere uisus,
K. S. 159 fingerat: fingeret. 167 Faral right. 174, the elision is
suspicious: perhaps huius ego mortis. 197 genitum, K.S. 191, ete.:
see above. 220 mori: mortem? 2320 perhaps nec sinis hunc utta, me
neque morte frut: si non uis uita, me sine morte f., K.S. 235 sicut spi-
ramina K. S. 263 morte: obviously more. 272 peremptd impossible:
read pereunte with one MS. (omit -que). 273 MS. H right (nece
crudeli). 277 omit -que. 278 quod monstrans: perhaps quae demens.
285 rapit ... frangit: rapuit . . . fregit. 286 subire MS. H right, but
genus seems wrong, as does factus in 288. 300 add comma after
ultima. 201 read penultima, with one MS. The next 9 lines are
hopeless, and probably spurious. In lines 86, 159, 272, 273, 285
Strecker’s reading coincides with mine; in 167, 191, 208, 220, 225,
246, 248, 250, 269, 286 with Faral’s.

IIb. Anon. Pyramus, Lehmann, p. 46 ff.; Faral, p. 51 ff., 1. 14; add
et before opes. 18 laxari, K.S. 40 premit infantum: invert. 91 has no
rhyme; perhaps it is two half lines: Il. 91, 92 are unintelligible. 102
MS. H is probably right. 107 prauis seems corrupt. 129 del. comma
after nunc. 169 modo fieri: invert.

II c. Anon. Pyramus. (Lehmann offers a shocking text, pp. 52 ff.)
1. 7 sine te nulla potest: nulla potest sine te. 8 edifica moribus: invert.
9 ni: nist (so MSS). 28 pécius (!): parcius (so MSS). 31, insert
tacendo after loquendo. 42 read dicit, Nasoque uerus erat. 61 neque
eam uagem: perhaps neque uagans abeat (or erret). 62 apta: apte. 76
put semicolon before Aiis nam, not after. 77 nimis: minus. 86 tales:
cantus is perhaps preferable to talos. 87 certa: certe. 91 hoc: haec.
92 mouebat: fecit. 102 ignis: ignem. 103 color: calor. 106 -que:
atque. 116 studiosa: studiosi. 118 -que: neque. 119 nec: hec. 120

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 303

suppresserit: sumpserit. 128 read rigor ille (patrum). 133 read paries
after fieret. 146 ad quod: ad os. 152 rumpe: rumpere. 159 perhaps
we should read non tamen indignamur: adest uerbum: uia uerbis.
168 exiguo: ex aequo, cf. Ov., Met. iv. 62. 170 respondit inquens: re-
spondens inqutt (so A). 179 rimam: rimae. 184 quae: quod. 191 cliuis
fons: possibly elutus fons, from Hor., Sat. ii, 4.16 misunderstood, or
illimis f. 193 rura: iunci? 195 est umbra: sc(ilicet) umbra. 201: the
right sense is got by putting a semicolon after discedunt. 208 um-
brosam: ambrosiam (cf. Ov. Met. iv. 215). 209 que: quid. 211 uero:
uera. 213 qua: quae. 214 inueniat: ni uenrat. 216 Phebi tolle: invert.
232 leuiter ille minas: illi minas leuiter. 245 Babilonis: Babiloni.
264 put comma before uwmbram, not after. 268 fecit: fecerit. 281
rapido: rabido. 283 ut: et. 284 fuit: fuerit. 296 cernit; discernit (?).
306 f., ‘Your life was worthy to live long (dudum, as Dietrich, |. 231),
mine to perish.’ Cf. Ov., Met. iv, 109 f. 313 effundit: effudit. 314
adeste: astate? 321 multo: multis. 326 contracta: cunctata. 344
satis: fontis. 352 add Pyrami before corpus. 356 et . . . morus:
ac... mare. 371 actuum: attamen. 379 quae: mthi. 397 manus:
manes. 399 reor, sum: sum rea: ero: tbo. 404 frenis: effrenis. 412 sit:
sis. 424 superos: pariter?? 425 eddem (as in Propertius, etc.):
perhaps tandem. 430 add premit before intus. 432 perhaps emer-
gunt curae, answering to discedit somnus. 435 Venus dat: invert.
437 comma after tela, not est. 441 milites: militet. 448 potentis: po-
tenter ?

III. De Somnio, Lehmann, pp. 63 ff., 1. 4, que moueant: quod mo-
neant. 9 uulnera: fulgida? 19 siccatus: fucatus is here so urgently
demanded by the sense, that I would read it, assuming a false
quantity. 28 read sordibus et squdlidum pectus hebebat iners? 32
ferus: fétens? 35, MS. H is right. 38 intus: inter. 39 male: mihi.
46 hic . . . comperta: haec composita (unless comperta be neut. plur.).
47 read quod putds ista monent, quae cernis uisa, futura? For quod
putds, cf. Thurot, Notices et Extraits, xxi, ii (1868), 400 ff., Vulg.,
Matt., 24, 45, etc. 53 adsurgere: adspergere. 54 diuitiis . . . tenent:
diuitias .. . tenet. 60 hunc: hanc. 67 parvere: parvore.

IVa. Paris Helenae. (pp. 65 ff.) 5 inulta: tnuicta. 10 disparet:
despicit?? 21 Tirio: Frigio. 36 prolongant: prérogant? 55 nisi:

304 The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets

quam? unguen: unguem? 89 readand punctuate quid sit; ne deitas
tibi constringatur, agendum (sc. est). 100 dit condita: diis c. (‘of
heavenly descent’). 135 there should only be a comma at the end.
147 damneque: nam neque. 149 I do not understand. 151 transfer
comma to iugales. 204 scutatos: scrutantes is perhaps better than
scrutatos. 212 numeretur (nomiretur, MS.): non miretur. 216 autum-
nis ut: autumno si? 223 alternantes: altercantes. 224 del. comma.

Helena Paridi. 1. 24 fuitne, rogo: possibly rogo, fuerit. 27 maritat:
molestet. 38 nam: namque. 42 quam dicit: quae vicit? 60 praecinis;
praecinit. 91 desererem: deserere. 117 lacks a syllable, e.g. (plus)
sollicent. 181 cinerata: temerata. 339 lentetur: laetatur. 364 mentem
dit: invert.

IVd. Florus Ouidio, etc. (pp. 81 ff.) 1. 38 nulla: perhaps nulli.
p- 84 1.7 omit one alter. |. 38 te: me. 47 monimenta recensa (no
comma), ‘narrated memories.’ 62 Where does this idea come from?

V. pp. 88f., 1. 3 read hec factt ut placeant que plures querere certant
(or placeat quod) (hoc . . . certant, K.S.). 4 quid ertt quod quis amare
uelit, K. S.; purpura pallet, Heinze. 5 semicolon at end: no comma
after wir in 1. 6. 8 read hec placet: e reliquis nulla suis meritis. 12 que

decorauit, ea: read queque decora, dea, or que decoraret, ea. 13 not
clear: perhaps celitus aduentt: media testudine (‘under the middle of
the dome’) sedit alta (-e?) sub templt. 16 lentam: letam. 19 sicut:
sic tum. 27 reuerentes: reuertentes. 32 before 31; read diua for diuina.
35 uenisti: uenistis. 36 comedere: comesse. $7 dedit: tradidit. 39 f.,
perhaps (puellis) quas dotem fecit.

Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse

Since the above was written a book has apppeared which it is to
be hoped will help to raise the standard of mediaeval editing: it is
not without trepidation that I venture to make a few suggestions on
Mr Stephen Gaselee’s work.

1, 16 nuntiatum: nuntiatur, ‘a rival of his power is announced.’
20, 122 crebrat: cribrat. 20, 127 natantibys: manantibus? 20, 131
usquam: possibly usque. 20, 232 add semicolon, 234 del. semicolon
(circuli depends on ambagibus). 47, 41 et dederunt: exuerunt? (Cant.
5.7). 49, 260 sua: tua? 52, 293 tutae: mutae? 56: stanza vi should

The Textual Criticism of Mediaeval Latin Poets 305

come before v. 57.45 del. full stop (Is., 9.6). 60, 14 super gressus:
supergressus (del. comma) ‘transcending physical sense.’ 65.1 clara:
data. 65.26 inhiat: nutrical ? 65, 97 et is suspicious, as is the change
of persons: read te, and in 96 Aenea. 65, 99 spoponderit: spoponderat.
65, 107 quam: quae. 65, 109 donatae: donata. 69, 18 suppeditas =
caleas (from pes)? 71, 20 ornat: fuerat ( = erat), or wernat? 77, 53
patent: parent ( = apparent)? 85.9 rea: sed res? 86, 4 uia: uiae? 88,
19 haec: huic? (reference to the immaculate conception of the Vir-
gin). 88.43 plenum: plenam (from the Aue Maria), 89, 13 nec: nune.
102.13 punctuate comedis; si non, (cf. ergo 1. 14). 105.24 baculum:
baiulum ? (cf. 1. 39). 108, 15 and 18 tudices tu despicis . . . subiicis.

Wyaceston Boys’ ScHoo.,
LeIcEsTER, ENGLAND

THE GREGORIAN ANTIPHONARY OF SILOS AND
THE SPANISH MELODY OF THE LAMENTATIONS!

R. P. CASIANO ROJO, O.S.B.

HE practical difficulty brought about in Spain in the eleventh

and twelfth centuries by the substitution of the Roman for the
Mozarabic liturgy was great and embarrassing; for, as it was neces-
sary to shelve the manuscripts of the Spanish rite, the churches
found themselves without the indispensable instruments for celebrat-
ing the various sacraments and offices of the new use. It is clear that
the change was not brought about in a day, nor made simultaneously
in all parts of Spain; for it could be accomplished only by the ac-
quisition of new books, and this was difficult because of the com-
parative scarcity of manuscripts and the time and expense involved
in the transcription of copies. Some churches acquired foreign texts;
others had copies made with a rapidity remarkable for that time.
In general these copies reproduced the script and musical notation
of the original manuscript, but there were a few exceptions to the
rule. The monks of Silos, although they adopted the Romano-
Monastic rite, continued to use Visigothic script and notation for a
time, as is proved by two eleventh-century Breviaries, now preserved
in the British Museum, in which the whole of the Divine Office ac-
cording to the new use is written in the old manner.’ In certain Cata-
lan manuscripts, among them an eleventh-century antiphonary now
preserved in the ex-Colegiata of San Feliu in Gerona, although
French minuscule is used for the text, the musical notation still
conserves certain Visigothic elements.* All the other manuscripts

1 Translated from Spanish by Walter Muir Whitehill, Jr.
2 B. M. Add. 30848, Breuiarium de toto (anni) circulo and Add. 30850, Breuiarium seu

Antiphonale Silense. Add. 30850 contains the office of Santo Domingo de Silos, added in an

appendix a few years after his death in 1073.
3 Cf. reproduction in Miguel Rué y Rubié, Canto Gregoriano. Cooperacién & la Edicién
Vaticana de Libros de Canto Liturgico (Gerona, 1905), pp. 70, 71.

306

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos 307

of the period that I have seen are written in French minuscule with
the Aquitanian notation that originated in the south of France and
spread to Spain, where it soon took the place of the older Visigothic
notation.

Ordinarily the new copies reproduced the text of the original, with
the omission of feasts not celebrated in Spain, but without the ad-
dition of proper offices for Spanish saints. The reason is obvious:
it was not an auspicious period for the composition of new offices and
the new Roman rite was not easily accepted by the people. For
Spanish feasts the Commune Sanctorum was used, with lessons read
from the Passiones that had been used up to that time. In the ad-
ministration of the sacraments and in other rites the Mozarabic
tradition persisted with more or less stubbornness, as is witnessed by
the presence of various older prayers and ceremonies in the manu-
scripts of that period.’

In the Liber Ordinum from San Millan de la Cogolla * the Visi-
gothic notation of nearly the whole of the Agenda mortuorum, the
burial office, has been erased and Aquitaniam neums substituted.
There are two possible explanations for the change: either that a
Cluniac cantor, obliged to use the manuscript when the Mozarabic
liturgy was still current, wished to read the music in a notation bet-
ter known to him; or that the Mozarabic office for the burial of the
dead was used for some time after the general suppression of the
liturgy, so that it was necessary to replace the Visigothic neums by
the then general Aquitanian notation. The first hypothesis seems
hardly probable; for a similar substitution is found neither in the
other pages of the Liber Ordinum nor in any of the other manuscripts
from San Millan. The second seems more likely, for the Roman
musical formula ‘saeculorum. Amen’ has been added at the end of
the antiphons, which would be inexplicable had the change been
made before the suppression of the Mozarabic liturgy.

1 Even today in Toledo the burial office differs considerably from the Roman use.
? Madrid, Biblioteca de la Real Academia de la Historia, MS. 56.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos

CONTENTS AND ORIGIN OF THE S1Los MANUSCRIPT

The Silos Antiphonary ' is a manuscript of 396 leaves, measuring
268 x 197 mm., written in double columns of about 34 lines each
averaging 175 x 50 mm. It is composed of fifty gatherings of eight
leaves each, with the exception of the forty fourth which is of four
leaves.

The scheme of the gatherings is as follows: 1 ° (i-viii); 1 * (ix-xvi);
ui ® (xvii-xxiv); tv ® (xxv-xxxii); v ® (xxxiii-xl); vi ® (xli-xlviii); vi °
(xlix-lvi); vi ® (Ivii-lxiv); rx * (Ixv-lxxii); x* (Ixxiii-lxxx); x1*
(Ixxxi-Ilxxxviii); xm * (Ixxxix-xevi); xm* (xevii-civ); xiv* (eyv-
cxii); xv ® (exiii-exx); xvi * (exxi-cxxviii); xv ® (exxix cxxx cxxxi
[exxxii] | [exxxiii] exxxiv cxxxv cxxxvi); xvii ® (exxxvii-cexliv); xrx *
(i-viii); xx ® (ix-xvi); xx1® (xvii-xxiv); xxm*® (xxv-xxxii); xx!
(xxxiii-xl); xxrv ® (xli-xlviii); xxv * (xlix-lvi); [xxv ® (Ivii-lxiv)];
xxvir® (Ixv-lxxii); xxvu1® (Ixxiii-lxxx); xxrx* (Ixxxi-lxxxviii);
xxx ® (Ixxxix-xevi); xxx1* (xevii-civ); xxx *® (ev-exii); xxx °
(exiii-cxx); Xxxiv ® (exxi-cxxviii); xxxv* (cxxix-cxxxvi); xxxv1'
(exxxvii-cxliv); xxxvi1® (exlv-clii); xxxvu1® (cliii-clx); xxxrx!
(elxi-elxviii) ; xL* (elxix-elxxvi) ; xL1° (elxxvii-elxxxiv) ; xLi1* (clxxxv-
excii); xLui*® (exciii-cc); xLIv*® (eci-cevili); xLv* (ecix-ccexvi);
XLv1‘* (217-220); xuivir® (221-228); xuvimr* (229-236); xix’
(237-244); L® (245-252); 1 ® (253-260); Lx? (261-262, 263 bound
in on stubs).

The manuscript appears to have been bound originally in two
volumes, as there is an accurate foliation in red Roman numerals,
contemporary with the manuscript and in two series. Gatherings
I — xvii are numbered from i to cxliv; gatherings x1x — xLv are
in a separate series from i to ccxvi, while gatherings xLvI — LII are
unnumbered. A few leaves are wanting at the end.?

The manuscript contains the following books —in an earlier
period written separately — necessary for the recitation of a com-
plete office: the Antiphonarium, composed of the antiphons and re-
sponses; the Lectionarium, with the selections from the Bible and

1 MS. 9 in the Archives of Santo Domingo de Silos.

2 There is no modern foliation, and accordingly, to distinguish the two series of numbers,
those of the second foliation will be referred to in the following manner: fol. rriv°.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos 309

other books that are read as lessons; the Psalterium containing the
necessary Psalms and Canticles; and, at the end, the Hymnarium.
The months of March and April of the Proprium Sanctorum ' and
the end of the Hymnarium are wanting.

There is no colophon or subscription that gives the precise date
and place of composition, but the script seems to be of the end of the
twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century.2 The manu-
script is written in a superbly regular French minuscule that gives
almost the effect of a printed page: it seems likely that it was copied
directly from a French original, in so much as the punctuation and
the abbreviations are entirely French and show no influence of
Visigothic usage. This is confirmed by the presence in the text of a
number of homilies ascribed to Dom Herico or Heyricus, a ninth
century monk of St Germain d’ Auxerre,* and the offices of French
saints such as St Radegonde and St Brice, Bishop of Tours.

The manuscript is of Spanish origin, or at least written for use in
Spain, as may be seen from an examination of the Calendar, which
contains two feasts for St James the Great, that of July 25, cele-
brated with an octave, and the Translation, observed on December
30. The Proprium Sanctorum contains a great number of Spanish
saints, many of whom were not honored in other countries, such as
SS. Fructuoso, Augurio, and Eulogio, St Ildefonso of Toledo, St
Eulalia de Barcelona, St Leandro, St Rosendo, St Prudencio, St
Torcuato and companions, St Pelagio, St Zoilo, St Marina, St Justa
and St Rufina, St Cucufato, SS. Verisimo, Maxima, and Julia, SS.
Vincente, Sabina, and Cristeta, SS. Lupercio, Claudio, and Victorino,
St Millan, SS. Acisclo and Victoria, SS. Facundo and Primitivo, St
Leocadia, St Eulalia de Mérida, the Commemoratio Sanctae Mariae
of December 18, and the translation of St Isidore. The sung portions
of these offices are, in general, taken from the Common of Saints,

1 Contained in the missing gathering, foll. lvii°-Ixiv’.

* The manuscript cannot be anterior to 1170, as it contains a commemoration of the
translation of S. Rosendo, which took place in that year. Cf. Antonio de Yepes, Coronica
General de la Orden de San Benito (Valladolid, 1615), fol. 14.

* This Heyricus wrote some 64 homilies, the introduction to which is published in the
Patrologia Latina, cxx1v, 1129-1182. He was later honored as a saint, but in the manu-
script he is referred to only as Dom.

310 The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos

but the manuscript contains two new antiphons in honor of St
James in which he is invoked with the title of patrone singularis,
The lessons and homilies are taken from the Passiones that were
read in Spanish churches during the Mozarabic period."

The offices are arranged according to the monastic use, but there
is no indication that the manuscript was originally intended for use
at Silos. It is true that an office is provided for St Sebastian, patron
of the Silos church, but it is joined to the commemoration of St
Fabian, as is the universal custom: there is no mention of Santo
Domingo de Silos, the patron of the monastery, for whom an office
is always provided in Silos manuscripts.? On the contrary, there are
strong arguments for the monastery of San Salvador de Celanova in
Galicia. The first of these is that the manuscript contains a proper
office for the feast of the Transfiguration, the patronal feast of
Celanova. This observance, which is of eastern origin, did not be-
come general in the western church until 1456, and, although it was
celebrated from the twelfth century on in monasteries dependent on
Cluny, from which it might have spread to an independent house
like Celanova, it seems that the importance given to it in this manu-
script, where an octave is provided with a great number of pices for
the days infra octauam, must be the result of a local observance.
The second argument in favour of Celanova is the presence not only
of the feast of St Rosendo, the founder and patron of the monastery,
but also an office commemorating his translation, an observance
clearly of local origin which, according to Yepes * was celebrated in
Celanova. Finally this attribution explains the presence of an of-
fice for St Giraldo, a native of southern France, at one time Precentor
of Toledo, who later became Archbishop of Braga, the ecclesiastical
province to which Celanova belonged.

Musically the manuscript is of considerable importance. It was
one of the principal sources consulted by Dom Pothier in preparing

1 The authors of some of these lessons are known; that of St Ildefonso was composed by
Cixila, an eighth-century Archbishop of Toledo, and that of St Pelayo is the work of a Galician
priest, Raguel.

2 Cf. Brit. Mus., Add. 30850, foll. 219-221, which is of the eleventh century.

3 Antonio de Yepes, Coronica General de la Orden de San Benito, v, fol. 15.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos 311

the 1891 edition of the Solesmes Antiphonary,' that has more recently
become the basis of the present official Vatican edition. The nota-
tion is of the Aquitanian superposed point system, written with a
single red line, but with the diastematic intervals so carefully cal-
culated that it can be read with the same rapidity as a modern
musical text with a complete staff. The Gregorian tradition repre-
sented is good and lawful, although like all the manuscripts of this
period there is a certain tendency toward the embellishment and
elaboration of the melody and the notes.

Among the music which it contains are several unpublished pieces,
worthy of being better known; not the least interesting of these are
two antiphons in honor of the patron of Spain, St James, which
probably date from the suppression of the Mozarabic liturgy. It is
unfortunate that they have not been included in the office of St
James that is at present in use.

IN NATALE S. IACOBI
I. VESP. ap MAGNIFICAT. (1).

&- te Ia- cé6- be,
ye)
‘a

~
-

um cor - de,

ad Dé- mi- num.

1 Liber Antiphonarius pro diurnis horis juxta ritum monasticum kalendario Ordinis Sancti
Benedicti accomodatus (Solesmes: Imprimerie Saint-Pierre, 1891).

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos
II. VESP. ap MAGNIFICAT (2).

1 — =
a4, | ro
rAd hc I °

San- cte Ia- cé - be , inter- cé-

a |
i TR Mk 7

a
de pro no-bis, ut con-sor- tes gl6- ri- ae

§ ;
Ap | a & -~
a @ Pee * oi man
-
San - ct6- rum te - ef- fi- ci me-

€-

a. a &
re- A- mur.
(1) ef. fol. XCVIv.* (2) fol. XCVIIv.*

Tue LAMENTATIONS

The manuscript contains four special tones for the Lamentations
of Holy Week and one for the Oratio Ieremiae, which I have already
published with three of the tones of the Lamentations; ' the fourth
is unpublished, and appears for the first time at the end of this
article. For convenience of reference the beginning of the three
other tones and the Oratio are also given at the end.

Various Spanish manuscripts anterior and posterior to the Silos
Antiphonary contain similar melodies of the Lamentations. Only the
first and simplest formula — from which the other three and many
other melodies of unequal value found in Spanish manuscripts
developed — is found in the earliest manuscripts. The Visigothic
Bible of San Pedro de Cardefia,? dating from the tenth or eleventh
century, which is now preserved in the Universidad Pontificia in

1 Cantus Lamentationum apud Hispanos usurpatus quem ex codice Silensi saeculo XIII
conscripto nunc primum iuris publice fecit (Bilbao, 1917). Copies may still be had from “Orfeo

Tracio” (n. d.), Génova, 19, Madrid.
2 Cf. A. Andrés, Bolettn de la Real Academia de la Historia tx (1912), 101-146.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos ' 318

Burgos, contains in foll. 236 and 237 with the first two chapters
of the Lamentations of Jeremiah a simple melody in Mozarabic
neums that, to all appearances, is that of the first melody of the
Silos manuscript. This is also found in a Lectionary, now preserved
in the collection of D. Narciso Sambola in Gerona, written in the
eleventh-century with the superposed point notation.! A thirteenth-
century Antiphonary in the Archives of the Cathedral of Huesca
contains two tones, still simple although slightly more elaborate than
those of the Cardefia and Gerona manuscripts: one, appointed for
Maundy Thursday, is similar to No. 1, without the formula of the
third phrase; the other, used for the Lamentations of Holy Saturday
and for the Oratio Ieremiae, is similar to No. m1, but in both the
cadences are shorter and a little monotonous.

In the Archives of the Cathedral of Toledo there is a fourteenth-
century Breviary? that contains the tones of the Lamentations.
The first (Maundy Thursday) resembles No. 11, but with the order
of the first and second cadences interchanged: the final phrase is
entirely different, and resembles the melody of the Ezrultet found in
many Spanish missals. The first and second tones of Maundy
Thursday somewhat resemble No. 1 in the general theme, but are
quite different in the greater part of the cadences. The other tones
of this manuscript have no resemblance to the Silos manuscript, nor
are they found in older documents: their character is that of a much
more modern period.

Since the sixteenth century all the Spanish cathedrals and col-
legiate churches have possessed beautiful, and sometimes richly
decorated, Pasionarios * that contained various tones for the Lam-
entations, the greater part of which reproduced more or less faith-
fully those of the previously mentioned Toledo manuscript: however,
nearly all of these added some new tones, some of which, being little
more than old formulas put to new uses, are of slight interest, while
others are actually new and of greater importance.

1 Three columns of this manuscript are reproduced by Rué y Rubi, op. cit., pp. 66, 67

2 MS. 35.9.

* So called because, among the other things, the account of the Passion according to the
four Gospels occupied the principal place.

314 The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos

A fifteenth-century Troper, No. 23 of the Cathedral Archives of
Leén, written in a heavy superposed point notation with a single
line, concludes with a series of Lamentations, the richest in variants
of any that I have seen, though many of them bear little relation to
the traditional tones and date from the period in which the manu-
script was written.

However, none of the other manuscripts containing the Lam-
entations mentioned in this study can be compared to the Silos
Antiphonary for the combination of truly classical restraint and all
the variety possible in this type of music: these melodies possess
the unity and the natural flowing quality of the best Gregorian com-
positions. The general tone is one of serenity and resignation.

ORIGIN OF THE S1Los LAMENTATIONS

In their general nature and scale these melodies resemble funda-
mentally many Roman recitatives, such as the oldest melody of the
Collects (ad libitum, No. 1 in the Vatican edition),' and those of the
Prefaces and the Pater Noster: the details in which the Lamentations
differ from these Roman melodies are all found in the Gregorian
antiphonary.

Unfortunately it is impossible to trace a satisfactory relationship
with authentic Mozarabic melodies, as so few have been deciphered,
but, notwithstanding, in those that are known some of the motives
of the Lamentations are found. The first part of the Oratio Ieremiae,
Recordare Domine quid acciderit nobis is identical, note for note, with
the beginning of the two antiphons Si ascendero in caelum and
Manus tua Deus deducet me of the Mozarabic Agenda mortuorum.’

The Oferencio (Ordo Missae) given by Cisneros to the Mozarabic
Chapel of Corpus Christi in Toledo Cathedral in the parts relating
to music is inspired by the same fundamental themes as the Lam-
entations and the oldest recitatives of the Roman rite, and more

1 Graduale Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae de Tempore et de Sanctis (Rome: Tipografia
Vaticana, 1908), pp. 96*-97.*

2 Cf. R. P. Casiano Rojo and R. P. German Prado, El Canto Mozdrabe, Estudio hist6rico-
erttico de su Antigiiedad y Estado actual (Barcelona: Diputaci6n Provincial, 1929), also R. P.
German Prado, “ Mozarabic Melodics,” Specutum, u1 (1928), 236, 237 and 1v (1929), 145.
The theme of Recordare is also found on p. 230 applied to the text Per gloriam nominis tui.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos 315

particularly contains many of the formulas and cadences of the tones
that we are studying. The prayer Per gloriam nominis tui that was
solemnly sung by the celebrant on feast days at the beginning of the
Mozarabic mass follows the same melodic lines as No. 11, but differs
from it in the final cadence and includes various formulas of No. m1
and No. tv. However, we are not standing on particularly firm
ground with the books of Cisneros, for the Mozarabic origin of all
their contents is doubtful. When he undertook his liturgical resto-
ration at the beginning of the sixteenth century the Mozarabic
tradition was already completely lost. The two great Cantorales of
the Chapel of Corpus Christi probably contain few authentic Moz-
arabic melodies: the Laudes contain some, but in a sufficiently
adulterated form. It is, in consequence, difficult to determine the
exact value of the Oferencio, especially as we have no manuscript
containing the Common melodies of the Mozarabic rite. It may be
that, in spite of the decadence of the rite in the years that preceded
the restoration of Cisneros, some memory of these melodies or some
document, now lost, was preserved,' by means of which the Oferencio
may contain, in substance at least, some of the tones used in the best
period of Mozarabic music: on the other hand, it is equally possible
that, wanting authentic Mozarabic melodies, Cisneros adapted
various chants of the Hispano-Roman rite then in use for his new
books. In any event, before his time, we find in the books of this
Hispano-Roman rite some of the melodies which he included in
his Mozarabic revision, for the tone of the Per gloriam nominis tut
is exactly the same as that of the Holy Saturday Praeconium
Paschale which is found in Spanish missals and Pasionarios both be-
fore and after Cisneros.

Nevertheless, in spite of this deficiency of authentic Mozarabic
melodies for comparison, the question of the origin of these tones is
capable of solution, for the melodies, at least in part, are found in
various non-Spanish manuscripts. In reality these formulas, at
least in their fundamental motives, form part of the common prop-
erty of all the western liturgies. In other countries, if these tones

! The preservation of the melodies of the Agenda mortuorum in the San Mill4n Liber
Ordinum makes such a notion seem possible.

316 The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos

were applied to the Lamentations at any early date, they were
abandoned in favour of that which has recently been adopted in the
Vatican edition ' for use in the universal church, which is said to be
the same tone used by the Jews in their synagogues. In Spain, to
the contrary, they have been used to the almost complete exclusion
of the other, and are not only found in the Gregorian manuscripts
but are reproduced in modern books as well.

The following illustrations give the beginning and the end of the
melodies as found in the Silos manuscript with the defects found in
the original. The first defect is that quite without necessity the
notes of the melody are frequently doubled in the vocalizations and
in the syllabic parts.? The second defect is the use of the liquescent
note in circumstances in which it has neither reason nor effect. The
copyist of the manuscript seems to have regarded the liquescent as a
device for tying together, an ascending note, by means of which in the
syllabic chants the voice passes from one note to the following, giv-
ing a sort of anticipation of the following note before actually reach-
ing it. This is not the function of the liquescent, which is properly
employed only with two consecutive consonants or two vowels
forming a dipthong, when, to pronounce the second properly, it is
necessary to pass to the note of the syllable following: by this means
sonority and clear articulation are lost, but the time value is pre-
served. The copyist has used the small note that expresses the
liquescent in places in which it is unnecessary, as there are neither
two consonants nor dipthongs. In No. tv, with the word candidiores
the liquescent is well placed; in rubteundiores and denigrata and in
the Ierusalem of the other pieces it has no object.

The reader will note that in the word manuum, toward the end of
No. 111, the notes are arranged as if it were a word of two syllables
only, ma-num. This procedure is correct, and was used in all

1 Officiuen Maioris Hebdomadae et Octauae Paschae a Dominicis in Palmis usque ad Sab-

batum in Albis cum cantu. Editio Typica Vaticana (Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana,
1922), pp. 283-289, 366-372, 487-443.

2 Cf. the formula that accompanies the letter Jod in No. 1 and the final words of each
strophe: cf. also the words ingressus, praecepetas, Ierusalem. In the other melodies there are
unnecessary notes that hinder the presentation of the text.

3 For a more complete explanation of this vocal effect see my Metédo de Canto Gregoriano

(Santo Domingo de Silos, 1906), pp. 66, 67.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos 317

manuscripts. When a vowel is repeated, and the first accompanies a
group of notes, the second repeated vowel is not pronounced sep-
arately, but is considered to have been dealt with sufficiently in the
vocalization of the first.

CANTUS LAMENTATIONUM
CANTUS I
Feria v. in Caena Domm. (1)

a
Qué- mo- do se- det

* @ 5

.
ple- na pé- pu- lo:

a,
re

ae é a a.
= sal -

fa- cta est qua- si wui- du-

nti- um: prin-ceps pro- uin- ci-

*_3

est sub tri- bu- to.

aa 4 4 aff
LA

me rs]
x

sa- lem, JTe- ra- sa- lem, conuér -

> A

a iebimeiieaisaniannaal fe

+.
=

te- re ad Dé- mi num De- um tu- um.

(1) ef. fol. LXIIIr and v.

CANTUS II
Feria vi. in Parasceue. (1).

7 —tHhra ae i
3.
a 2
o ?
Jod. Ma- num su- am mi-

Z
vo ae

in- grés-sas San- ctu -

2
+

= «
*

qui- bus prae- cé- pe- ras

.
Lal

” ~
hall Lal *

a “.
=

in ec- clé- si- am tu-
i
7

lem, Ie- ria-

a. r~
= Lad we

ad Démi- num De- um tu-

(1) cf. fol. LXVv.

CANTUS Ill
Sabbato Sancto. (1).

Paid t,24, ys
.

a)
Qué - mo - do

leph

tum est au- rum,

3 ,
4 lt « "A,
id I eli hel

pti- mus,
3 A.

la- pi- des sanctu -

mi- cti au-ro_ pri- mo: Qué- mo- do

, ha =.
bal — hanl

a
=

a
* -

re- pu- t&a- ti sunt in ua-

£ &

sa té- ste- a,

0 - pus ma- nuum fi- gu-

1
+

sa-lem, TJTe- ri- sa- lem, conuér- te- re ad

Dé- mi- num De- um tu -
(1) ef. fol. LXVII.

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos

.
fa" s —
> An
a '-¢,8A,

ter- fé- ctis fa-

“1¢,8 -
im 4 -_

y ter - rae.

(>
af. pp zs
a

ra- sa- lem, con-uér -te -

[bh
- Ea

Dé6- mi- num De- um tu- um.

AN UNPUBLISHED MELODY OF THE LAMENTATIONS

In the Silos manuscript in the office for Holy Saturday, after the
Oratio Ieremiae and with no other title than Alia, is a lesson, the
text of which is not found in the modern Breviary, apparently in-
tended to be used ad libitum as the third lesson of the first nocturn
in place of the Oratio Ieremiae. It is taken from the fourth chapter
of the Lamentations, and is composed of the verses that follow those
of the second lesson of this nocturn.

ALIUS CANTUS LAMENTATIONIS
SABBATO SANCTO. (1).

¢ fen t Seals y
t.1. el,

4,20, _

Can-di- di- 6- res

ius ni- ue,

ru- bi-cun-di- 6-res

est fa- ci- es e- 6-rum - su-

car- bé- nes, et non sunt cég- ni-ti

ad- haé- sit

Tu - it,

(1) cf. fol.

322 The Gregorian Anttphonary of Silos

The melody in no way resembles the preceding tones, neither is it
similar to anything in the Mozarabic or Gregorian repertories. Its
closest relationship seems to be with the following antiphon for Sab-
bato in Parasceve in the Ambrosian Antiphonary.? The fact that
both pieces are destined for use in Mattins of the same day,'the one
as a lesson, the other as an antiphon, is a coincidence worth noting.

SABBATO IN PARASCEVE
AD MATUTINUM. ANT. (1)

o
P6- su- i ue- sti- mén- tum me- um
—
a j}—_¢—__9°_» _» _»_» _y
ci- Ii- ci- um, et fa- ctus sum il- lis
6 o——_-—-v
ose a ss ai a os.
a * s e
in pa- ra- bo- lam..&. A-d-uér- sum me
é

——@-—"_8@"""8"""“8 2.0200 nnn Bs sO OS"
a

ex - er- ce- ban- tur qui se- dé- bant
¢—*— st _
ete 7
in por- ta, et in me psal- lé- bant
¢ - - —_
2 o—_—*# na 2 ae s_ >
qui bi- bé- bant.ui- num e- go ue-
— 2 Reon
os - - = s “ as 4
ro o- ra- ti- 6- nem me- am ad
¢ I

te, Dé-mi- ne.

(1) cf. Paléographie musicale, VI, 302.

Qo 4

= il @ « in a ~-/nn? n ——)

The Gregorian Antiphonary of Silos 323

The melody is in the first mode, and is of an expansive character
that is in sharp contrast to the other tones in the manuscript: it ap-
pears to have been inspired by the first strophe of the text, Candi-
diores Nazaraet eius niue, nitidiores lacte, rubicundiores ebore antiquo,
saphiro pulchriores. It is probably of the period of the manuscript,
although it may possibly be a little older: the use of the first mode
scale with the constant introduction of si-natural, and the elaborate
vocalizations at the ends of the strophes are characteristic of this
period. Although this text is not contained in the present day
Breviary, the melody could easily be applied to the second lesson of
Holy Saturday, Quomodo obscuratum est aurum, as the strophes of
both texts are of similar character.

1 F, lvii®.

2 British Museum, Add. 34209, reproduced in facsimile in Paléographie Musicale (Soles-
mes, 1), v, 253, 254. Cf. the text, v1, 302.

Reat ABADiA DE Santo DomINGo DE SILOs,
Burcos, Spain

CANTUS IV
Sabbato Sancto. (1).

t. 2. § ——— fis —3—fea—,- tL

ee: a _
O- ri- ti- o Ile- re-mfi- ae Prophé-
a

a
tae. Re- cor- da- re, Dé-mi- ne, quid ac- ci-

od oe .
de- rit no- bis: in- tu- é-_ re, et
Z L/S
ee poops
& mn & ry.¥
io
ré- spi- ce op- pré- bri- um_ no- strum.
RRS: NE a 2 a ae r |
vo id
He- ré- di- tas no- stra uer- sa est
rs - & s. 4 eo
. * “t +t A. | + Q ‘
ee * 7 ,
ad a- li- é- nos: do- mus no- strae
, I rs 7 ee
v Flin a ee {® - v ]
ap * aie ]
™
‘
ad ex - tra- ne- os. Te- rii- sa-_ lem,
eg o a 4 a a ' ——
a a a Ae oe :
7 ¥ — +, é
Ie- ri-sa- lem, con-uér- te- re ad c
a t
a A e' € “ad |
~~ = e

“

Dé6- mi- num De- um tu- um.

(1) cf. fol. LVIIr and v.

7
I
N

REVIEWS

Anniversary Essays in Mediaeval History by Students of Charles Homer Haskins presented on
His Completion of Forty Years of Teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Cloth.
Pp.x + 417. $5.00.

Amonc American Festschriften which have appeared, this is a notable vol-
ume distinguished both by the eminence of the scholar to whom it is ded-
icated and the quality of the contributions. If not by reason of years,
certainly by distinction of scholarship, Professor Haskins is the doyen of
American mediaevalists, doubly remarkable as a creative and productive
scholar and as a maker of students and teachers to follow in his footsteps.
There are eighteen contributions to this volume, one of them by a former
Radcliffe College student. An analysis of the nature of these eighteen sub-
jects is interesting, for thereby one sees how the dominant interests of Pro-
fessor Haskins as an historian are reflected in the work of his students. The
intellectual history of mediaeval Europe and mediaeval institutional history
are almost evenly divided, there being six of the former and seven of the
latter. When one remembers the Norman Institutions and The Renaissance
of the Twelfth Century, one perceives how true to the master’s ideals his
students are. It is odd, though, not to find any study on the history of
mediaeval science in this list. The rest of the subjects comprise three of a
political nature and two on law. As to geographical distribution the authors
are interestingly distributed: Massachusetts five, Pennsylvania three,
New York three, and New Jersey, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, and New Mexico each one. Evidently the New England
and Middle Atlantic states may be regarded as Professor Haskins’ domain.
But as a scholar every mediaevalist knows that his line is drawn out to the
ends of the earth and his words to the end of the world. Europe claims him
as do we of America.

Not every one of these essays is as deep as a well or as wide as a church
door. But as a whole the quality of them all is very high. Some of the con-
tributors are more seasoned scholars than others, so that one naturally dis-
covers some degree of unevennness among the essays. If the reviewer may
express a preference, he would especially designate Mr Howard L. Gray’s
‘Greek Visitors to England in 1455-56’; Mr William E. Lunt’s ‘Clerical
Tenths Levied in England by Papal Authority during the Reign of Edward
II’; Mr Sidney R. Packard’s ‘Norman Communes under Richard and John’;
Mr Carl Stephenson’s ‘Taxation and Representation in the Middle Ages’;

325

326 Reviews

and Mr C. H. Taylor’s ‘Census de rebus in the Capitularies.’ With one ex-
ception, this selection puts the contributions pertaining to institutional
history upon the preferred list. But no invidious distinction is implied. It
may be that the intellectual history of the Middle Ages is harder to under-
stand than its institutional history; yet it would seem also that the writers
of the essays which have to deal with the former subject are less experienced
scholars than some of the other contributors.

The volume has been edited by Mr C. H. Taylor, Assistant Professor of
history in Harvard. A portrait of Professor Haskins which every possessor
of the volume will cherish is in the front of the volume, which is terminated
with a bibliography of Professor Haskins’ writings which fortunately in-
cludes even his book reviews.

JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON,
University of Chicago

1. Branv and N. Carrosan, Album de Paleografie Romaneasca (Scrierea Chirilica). Bucharest:
Socec and Co., 1929. Boards. 35 plates. Lei 170.

Ir has been observed that the use of the Cyrillic alphabet among the Ru-
manians is one of the most interesting moments in the history of Graeco-
Slavic civilization. The adoption of this alphabet is initially traceable to
Bulgarian influence. Even in the fourteenth century, after the foundation
of the independent principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Rumanians
continued to maintain their intimate contact with Slavic culture, the dom-
inance of which did not begin to decline until some 150 years later. It is
thus in the early sixteenth century that Rumanian literary monuments be-
gin to appear, composed in the vernacular, but written in the Cyrillic script.
The habit of introducing formal documents with a Church Slavic formula
persisted, as a matter of fact, in Moldavia as late as the second half of the
eighteenth century, and the number of Rumanian texts written or printed
in the Latin alphabet prior to 1780 is extremely slight. It is also undeniable
that, from the phonetic standpoint, the Cyrillic alphabet was better adapted
to the representation of Rumanian sounds than the Latin. It thus favored
the evolution of an exact and constant orthography. As Tiktin has re-
marked (Groéber’s Grundriss, I (2d ed.), 571):

Der rein phonetische Charakter der cyrillisch-ruminischen Schrift begiinstigte
die allmihliche Ausbildung einer auf klaren und festen wenn auch in keiner Gram-
matik kodificierten Regeln beruhenden Orthographie, welche etwa um den Beginn
des vorigen [18ten] Jahrhunderts sich so allgemeine Geltung verschafft hatte, dass

die Urkunden dieses und der ersten Hiilfte des gegenwirtigen [19ten] Jahrhunderts
insgemein kaum nennenswerte orthographische Divergenzen aufweisen.

The attachment of the Rumanians to the Cyrillic alphabet was indeed
so great that despite the multiplication of Greek schools and influence under

Reviews 327

the Phanariote régime, they continued to use this alphabet not only in
vernacular documents but also for instruments composed in Greek. The
initial impulse toward the adoption of the Latin alphabet proceeded from
the Uniate clergy in Siebenbiirgen, in connection with their Catholic prop-
aganda and a related desire to emphasize the Romanic character of the
Rumanian nation. A natural resistance by the Orthodox elements of the
population delayed the realization of this reform, so that only in 1860 did
the Latin alphabet become the sole script for school and official use. It
was adopted considerably later by the ecclesiastical authorities, and even
shortly before the World War, calendars and various works of popular
nature were still being printed in the Tsirillitsa, which was especially prev-
alent in Bessarabia.

In the light of these circumstances, it is clear that Cyrillic palaeography
is an important auxiliary to the study of Rumanian philology. The Album
of Professors Bianu and Cartojan (though the specimens in general offer
little novelty to the student of Slavic palaeography) provides a convenient
instrument for this branch of investigation. Beginning with the Psaltirea
Scheiana and the Voronetul Codex, the compilers offer a representative
series of facsimiles extending from semi-uncials of the sixteenth century to
cursives of the nineteenth, together with several interesting plates of liga-
tures, initials, and tail-pieces. It would perhaps have been worth while to
include one or two specimens of contemporary South-Slavic Cyrillic texts
to parallel the script of the Psaltirea Scheiana. One might profitably com-
pare the Prophets written at Athos in 1542-1543 (cf. Lavrov: [aseo-
epaguueckoe O6ospmnie, no. 303, p. 275), now in the National Library at
Belgrade (No. 26), or the Lomnica Tipik of 1578 (Lavrov, op. cit., no. 305,
p. 277; Belgrade Academy of Sciences, No. 120). In any case, the present
collection will doubtless form a valuable adjunct to seminary studies in this
comparatively neglected subdivision of Romance Philology, which will be
still further promoted by the publication of the manual of Rumanian Cyril-
lic palaeography which these eminent scholars have in preparation.

SamuEL H. Cross,
Harvard University

F. HottHausen, ed., Beowulf nebst den kleineren Denkmdlern der Heldensage. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter, 1929. I. Teil: Texte und Namenverzeichnis, 6. verbesserte Auflage, pp.
x + 123; II. Teil: Einleitung, Glossar und Anmerkungen, 5. verbesserte Auflage, pp.
xl+ 214. Paper. Mk. 5.

Tue texts which Holthausen prints in the present edition are Beowulf, the
Finnsburg fragment, the two Waldere fragments, Deor and Widsith. Pre-
fixed are four plates, which give us an idea of the handwriting of as many

328 Reviews

scribes (including, of course, the two hands of Beowulf). Texts and Namen-
verzeichnis alike seem to be a Manuldruck based on the plates of the edition
of 1921, though there is no mention of the point in the Vorwort. It must be
added that a few changes were apparently made on the plates, so that the
sixth edition is not identical with the fifth. As regards Part II, the Finleit-
ung is reprinted from the edition of 1919, but seven pages of Nachtrdge are
annexed. The glossary and the index are described as reprints ‘mit Plat-
tenkorrekturen.’ The notes, however, were ‘vollstdndig neu gesetzt.’

The editor tells us (I, vi) that his texts differ from those of the previous
edition in two ways. On the one hand, he has restored defensible manu-
script readings; on the other, he has tried to correct, by emendation, some
corrupt passages. The result of his editorial work cannot be described as an
edition that holds fast to the iiberlieferung. I have gone through the first
500 lines of Beowulf as Holthausen prints it, and find no less than 98 in-
stances of what I consider needless emendation, to which other students of
the poem might well add a few further instances. And yet it would be un-
just to say that Holthausen is an erratic or irresponsible editor of Old-Eng-
lish texts. He may take more liberties with the manuscripts than do some
others, but he belongs to the authentic tradition of Old-English philology,
which has never shown much reverence for the monuments as they are.
The so-called conservatism of certain Old-English philologists exhibits it-
self not so much in a reluctance to emend as in a reluctance to give up old
emendations in favor of the manuscript reading! Holthausen’s edition is
full of this kind of ‘conservatism.’ Indeed, most of the emendations that
true conservatives, like myself, object to are old conjectures, handed down
piously from generation to generation and long since become so sacred that
any mention of the actual reading of the manuscript shocks and alarms the
faithful. I note that Holthausen keeps his punctum delens under the 8
of dod in |. 1231, and I am not surprised, for fidelity to the text, in the
face of earlier emendation, is not yet reckoned a virtue in Old-English
scholarship.

Kemp MALOong,
Johns Hopkins University

Ca. Petit Dutartuis and Grorces Leresvre, Studies and Notes Supplementary to Stubbs’
Constitutional History, translated by M. I. E. Robertson and R. F. Treharne. Manchester:
University Press, 1929. Cloth. Pp. ix, 303-517.

ALTHOUGH these studies are associated in publication with the third volume
of Stubbs, they relate almost entirely to subjects covered in his first two
volumes. In the introductory chapter, M. Petit Dutaillis attempts to dis-
abuse the reader of the belief held by Stubbs, that ‘Edward I . . . definitely
founded the parliamentary monarchy’ (p. 308). It is a drastic criticism.

. -™ eS 65 6 me ele

oe s&s 2. ®

Reviews 329

Indeed, some of his arguments are more emphatic than his conclusion de-
mands. Scholars who would agree that ‘the Parliament of 1305 . . . owes
its new features to the perfecting of monarchical centralisation [sic]’ (p.
346) — possibly reserving the privilege of slight modification — might not
accept as proved either that, during the whole of the Middle Ages, the com-
mons contributed nothing to the foundation of the constitutional monarchy
(p. $25), or that all the English kings of the last centuries of the Middle
Ages sought to follow a policy of megalomania (p. 313).

M. Lefebvre traces the development of the administration and the origins
of the House of Commons as they are depicted in the literature published
approximately before 1928. He correlates and interprets the new evidence
and opinions, reducing them to a brief summary of remarkable clarity. He
also illumines the subject with analogies and contrasts drawn from French
institutions. His treatment results in a series of judgments with which the
reader of the literature on which they are based is likely to find himself
sometimes in agreement and sometimes not. Beyond such matters of
opinion there is a modicum of inaccuracies, such as are nearly inevitable in
a brief generalization of so large a mass of complicated materials. The
chancery, for example, hardly became a court of common law (pp. 380,
406). Richardson and Sayles, in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical
Research (v1, 76) demonstrate the error of the statement that ‘under Ed-
ward II men began to reserve the name “Council in Parliament” for the
assemblies in which the barons summoned to the Council sat conjointly
with the Commons’ (p. 434), if there was doubt previously. Surely it is
too categorical to assert, without qualification and without adequate consid-
eration of interpretations to the contrary, that Edward I ‘did not think of
conceding to the Commons the right of consenting to taxation’ (p. 484).

There are several typographical errors and apparently one mistake in
translation. On page 332, line 13, the sense seems to require the substitu-
tion of ‘any’ for ‘no.’

For one who is beginning the study of the English Constitution this book
provides a valuable outline of recent discoveries and a guide to the literature.
Even seasoned students may find it useful. In a field where the literature
is increasing and will increase so rapidly, an estimate made by two such
competent and impartial scholars of the stage which our knowledge had
reached at a definite time can hardly fail to be enlightening.

W. E. Lunt,
Haverford College

330 Reviews

Epwarp Kennarp Rano, Studies in the Script of Tours, I; A Survey of the Manuscripts of
Tours. Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, Publication No. 3,
1929. Vol. 1, Text. Pp. xxi-+ 245; vol. u, Plates CC. $50.00.

Tuis is not only an important work in the new material and conclusions it
brings to the student of palaeography, but it is still more a milestone in the
progress of the study of mediaeval manuscripts, and an incentive to other
scholars to carry on and enrich the study of this and allied fields. The
pioneer work of Delisle and Traube, together with Rand’s earlier studies
and the contributions of Kéhler and others, are all utilized to make this
picture of the manuscripts of Tours as complete and accurate as possible. I
remember that Traube, in his lectures in 1896, pictured works like this as
the next great task for Latin palaeographers. He then hoped to see not one
but many mediaeval schools of writing studied and illustrated with ade-
quate facsimiles. Most of this work is still to be done, but the need at least
is now generally recognized.

In Rand’s work the chief weight has been laid on the styles of writing in
the eighth and ninth centuries, but the entire activity of these three monas-
tic schools from the sixth to the twelfth century has been included.

The first two chapters treat of the libraries and the general characteris-
tics of the script. Chapter ITI is an especially important contribution cover-
ing the size, ruling, quires, signatures, abbreviations, punctuation, and text
of the manuscripts studied. Much of this comprehensive survey is derived
from Rand’s earlier studies, and the section on the systems of ruling is of
the greatest value for the whole investigation.

Chapter IV gives the stages in the development of the Script of Tours.
Only suggestions are given on what style of writing prevailed in the sixth and
seventh centuries. The Ashburnham Pentateuch is claimed for the end of
this period, whether rightly or not is still a question, but the manuscript
was certainly at Tours later. With the eighth century, the study becomes
more exact. The different styles of writing are classified under the headings:
the Irish at Tours, the Pre-Alcuinian Style, and the Reforms of Alcuin.
The last of these is of special interest, for against Traube’s dictum, Rand
maintains definite and extensive influence of Alcuin. The manuscripts
described as the Embellished Merovingian Style are assigned to the time
of Alcuin, or immediately thereafter, while the so-called Regular Style seems
to follow Alcuin.

The ninth century shows a far greater number of manuscripts definitely
recognized and dated. Six types of writing are distinguished and assigned
to their proper succession in the century, though these sub-periods natur-
ally overlapped somewhat. Also in this period enough books are preserved
so that the three schools of Tours, St Martin, St Gatian, and Marmoutier,
can be distinguished in their styles of writing.

Reviews 331

The survey is carried on through the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centur-
ries, but is more general in character as the number of manuscripts thus far
recognized and assigned to definite dates and monasteries is limited. Fur-
thermore, no such intensive study of the manuscripts listed for these cen-
turies has as yet been attempted.

After these historical chapters there follows a full, systematic description
of each manuscript studied, a model for workers in palaeography. Very
rarely is any essential item omitted or any point treated left without a
definite statement, or at least an expression of opinion. When neither is
given, there is regularly the acknowledgment that the manuscript has not
been examined recently or adequately. Rarely the very condensed form of
description is not easily intelligible; cf. page 148, line 27: ‘Abbreviations.
Few but extended.’ Also page 161, line 24 and elsewhere: ‘Abbreviations.
Extended. Many.’ I assume ‘extended’ to mean that the regular list of
abbreviations was somewhat enlarged in the manuscript being described.

Excellent indices of manuscripts, plates, authors and works, and a gen-
eral index complete the volume. These serve also to make the companion
volume of facsimiles more usable. For such a work these are matchless in
number and excellence and enable the student to follow every step in the
development of the Script of Tours.

In the narrow compass of a review only a few of the many matters
treated can be even mentioned. In every chapter there are sections that
elicit immediate approval, or cause one to question views previously held.
Of considerable importance to scholars are the frequent indications of parts
of the field of study that would prove fruitful subjects of investigation.
Acquaintance with this book will be quite as helpful to the student as to the
trained palaeographer.

The discussion of Alcuin’s influence on the Script of Tours (pp. 38 ff.)
may be singled out as an example of Rand’s method of work and of the inti-
mate knowledge of the subject given by years of study. Perhaps one could
assume that Alcuin would have headed a reaction against the cursive hand,
but even more characteristic of Tours is the careful individual development
of the different script forms, capitals, uncials, half-uncials, and minuscules,
and the complete avoidance of the mixed types, so common elsewhere in
France at the time. On pages 23 and 24 there is a most interesting explana-
tion of Q VII R as ‘q{uaternio] VII rfequisitum est].’ This custom of having
an abler scholar recollate the manuscript is traced back, as far as concerns
Tours, to Alcuin. On page 20, he notes that No. 140 alone has reclamantes;
cf. page 166, where this manuscript is dated eighth or ninth century, fol-
lowing Wordsworth and White. The presence of reclamantes in this manu-
script alone at Tours is strange and deserves further consideration. Thomp-
son (Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 54) says that ‘rec-

332 Reriews

lamantes to connect the quires first appear, but rarely, in the eleventh;
from the twelfth century on they become common.’ Thompson’s acquaint-
ance with Irish and English manuscripts is probably sufficient to make his
statement authoritative for those styles of writing. Therefore it does not
seem that the presence of reclamantes in No. 140 is explained by referring
the manuscript to an Irish scribe. I may add that I have frequently found
reclamantes in manuscripts of the works of Beatus from the tenth to the
twelfth century. Of these Madrid, Bibl. Nac. H. 58 seems to be not later
than early tenth century. There can be little question that the system was
known in Spain from the ninth century on, and it may have been used in
one of the original manuscripts of Beatus, 776 to 786. It would be interest-
ing to have information on this question from early manuscripts of other
parts of Europe, but an examination of early Visigothic manuscripts would,
I think, prove most fruitful. The resemblance of the Ashburnham Penta-
teuch miniatures to early Spanish art perhaps indicates an early connection
between Spain and Tours. The reclamantes may be another hint of this
connection.

Misprints or infelicitous forms of expression are most rare. I have noted
only the following: page 72, line 5, ‘as examples as’; page 74, line 29, ‘St
Maurice’s’; the Cajhedral of St Maurice is the earlier name (see pp. 3 to
58), but thereafter St Gatian is the name used; page 106, line 33, “No. 28’;
as MS. 28 is being described, the comparison should be to another of the
group, Nos. 24 to 34; page 204, line 17, probably an asterisk was omitted
before ‘Fragment,’ for Rand was allowed to inspect this fragment.

Henry A. SANDERS,
American Academy in Rome

EpGar Fin.tey SHANNON, Chaucer and the Roman Poets. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1929. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, vol. vu. Pp. xxii + 401.

THE gain in our knowledge of Chaucer’s indebtedness to the Classics of
Rome may be indicated by a comparison of some forty pages in Professor
Lounsbury’s Studies and the extent of the present work. The cautionary
note sounded by Lounsbury still has value for the hunter of parallels:
‘Whether [Chaucer] was actually familiar with the writings of all of these
[poets], or with all the writings of any one of these, is a question that cannot
be answered positively, in the present state of our knowledge.’+ But Pro-
fessor Shannon has shown, on the whole, a salutary fear of pressing too
hard the arguments for some particular source. As we should expect, the
book is thorough, sensible, and steady. Lounsbury’s further remark, that
‘it is not necessarily [Chaucer’s] tastes that are represented, but his op-

1 T. R. Lounsbury, Studies in Chaucer, etc. (New York, 1892), 11, 249.

ne A ee eels | ~ - n ; en en ee?! en. | qe sl ClCH et

> =| = ket

Reviews 333

portunities,’ ' leads us to speculate on the validity of making any inferences
regarding the nature of the poet’s reading. But looking over carefully
what Shannon presents compels us anew to wonder at the range and variety
of what the busy fourteenth-century Englishman was able to assimilate.
We are almost tempted to suppose that in beginning to write Chaucer sur-
rounded himself with useful books like a modern investigator. Whatever
his learning, he must have read with taste and insight; and a comparison in
this respect with other men of the Middle Ages, like Chrétien de Troyes or
Jean de Meun, would be interesting.

Mr Shannon does not attempt to offer a broad background for his study.
He goes simply and directly through the poet’s works, one after another,
and lists and summarizes the points of significance for his subject. In the
second part he deals with the influence of certain Roman authors for whom
there was no place earlier for adequate discussion. “The one dominant idea
that emerges from the consideration’ is Chaucer’s ‘intimate knowledge of
even the details of Ovid’s poetry.’? ‘The points of similarity in taste and
poetic gifts between Chaucer and Ovid are so many that we cannot wonder
at the extent of the Roman’s influence upon the Englishman.’* The con-
geniality of spirit and temperament of the two writers is discussed at
length, and the conclusion of the book is reached in the theory that it was
the Italian Renaissance, chiefly Latin in its inspiration, which led to
Chaucer’s freedom and mastery in his art,* — a conclusion of first-rate im-
portance if it is justified, and in the light of the present book certainly one
worth examination.

The difficulty, however, of weighing such arguments is that necessarily
in such a field all the evidence is not yet at hand. Since the book first ap-
peared, Mr S. B. Meech has made it clear that, where Shannon supposed
that Chaucer was using a Latin version of the Heroides, his source was
really an Italian translation; and Mr Meech promises to show that the poet
also relied on the Ovide Moralisé more extensively than has been realized
hitherto.® It is impossible to be quite sure that in every case where a Latin
reference appears in the Middle English the borrowing has not come at
second hand through a French intermediary. Thus doubtful cases play a
large part in the estimate of Ovid’s influence, and we can rarely be certain
whether Chaucer has taken his allusion directly from the Classics or from
Boccaccio, Benoit, or the Roman de la Rose. The total impression gained
from the treatment of certain poems, like the Troilus, may be seriously
misleading, so far as Chaucer’s own acquaintance with the Latin poets is
concerned; the analysis of Criseyde, for example, remains unconvincing as

1 Ibid. 2 Page 371.
3 Ibid. 4 Pages xiv, 376 ff.
5 PMLA., xxv (1930), 110 ff. and 117, n. 28.

334 Reviews

it now stands.' Furthermore, the question of emphasis, always essential,
raises some doubts in one’s mind, as in the discussion of the House of Fame,
where, in the opinion of the reviewer, Mr Shannon does far less than justice
to French influence in his zeal to explain the material otherwise. He writes:
‘Chaucer, I believe, was carried so far away from his love-vision idea by
his classical material that when he attempted to return to it, he found the
spirit of the poem so changed that he gave it up.’ Not many readers, I am
afraid, will agree with this view. The neglect of proper consideration of the
Panthére d’ Amours and certain other works * leads one to a false idea of the
whole poem and its general nature.

One returns dubiously, therefore, to Mr Shannon’s main point regarding
the influence of the Renaissance. After all, if the House of Fame shows
‘imaginative freedom,’ we are not inclined to attribute that quality to the
effect of the classics. If Boccaccio represents influence of the kind, he de-
rived his stories from what must be considered a largely unadulterated
mediaeval tradition. Furthermore, poets like Ovid and Virgil were well
known long before the Italian Renaissance, unless we date that movement
so early that it loses significance. Chaucer’s humane and realistic attitude
toward his fellow creatures derived much from works like the Roman de la
Rose and the Miroir de Mariage and considerable from his own tempera-
ment. He employed a schematic presentation of his material until late in
his career, and his free use of such a plan at its best (in comparison with the
manner of a poet like Jean de Meun or the author of Piers Plowman) springs
from his genius. Many writers in the Middle Ages could tell a story well.
In fact Shannon seems to incline somewhat to an obsolete conception of the
period. Thus he writes: Chaucer’s ‘spirit no doubt kindled in sympathy
with the Latin poet’s spirit of fun, which so completely escaped the Middle
Ages generally’; * ‘When the Renaissance came, and men began again to
read the classics for themselves in a critical way instead of Scholia upon
them, they noticed,’ etc.® But the value of the book is not affected by con-
tentions of this kind. Rather it lies in the rich and varied detail ° offered to
demonstrate the influence of the Roman poets in Chaucer’s reading, among

1 Shannon, pp. 160 ff. Cf. p. 167, n. 3.

2 Ibid., p. 117. Cf. the discussion of the Compleynt of Anelida, pp. 28ff., and Miss Fabin’s
note, MLN., xxx1v (1919), 266 ff.

3 In addition to Sypherd’s material, cf. my note, MIN., xxx1v (1919), 323 ff.

* Page xvi. 5 Page 27.

6 Cf., for a doubtful instance of borrowing, p. 178, on Cant. Tales, A. 1761, and see Griffin
and Myrick, The Filostrato of Giovanni Boccaccio (Philadelphia, 1929), pp. 64 f., n. 2. A few
other details may receive brief comment: The discussion of the Troilus (Shannon, pp. 169 ff.)
exaggerates, I think, the ‘dismay’ with which it may have been received. The question is one
of proportion, like the poet’s ‘quarrel’ with Gower. Cf. the note on Chaucer as a student at
the Inner Temple (p. 174) with Tout, Specutum, rv (1929), 382 ff.

Oo DP wes & s&s = Be na a fm. o& me.32 & & wee .-@

QO memo So

Reviews 335

which it is of special interest to find that Catullus seems to occupy a place.
For generalizations, such as might tell us how far the English poet used the
original Latin and how far he relied on the assistance of French or Italian
translations, or what works Chaucer knew thoroughly as a student and
what he picked up later, we must be patient enough to wait for other
studies. Meanwhile here is sufficient material to provoke thought as well
as gratitude, and to encourage further research.

Howarp R. Patcna,
Smith College

MarcareET R. Toynsee, St Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation in the Four-
teenth Century. Manchester: University Press, 1929. Cloth, 80. Pp. ix + 266.

THIs is no mere experiment in hagiography. The writer has deep and sym-
pathetic interest in the career of the saint with whom she deals and makes
clear all the available facts of his life and not simply those justifying the
canonisation accorded finally to him by his friend, Pope John XXII.
Transcending this initial purpose, she succeeds in giving a good understand-
ing of the way in which, up to the fourteenth century, the Church managed
the processes of canonisation in general. Competent theologians and stu-
dents of ecclesiastical administration must pass judgment upon the details
of her statements; to the lay mind they furnish a clear and unbiased ac-
count of the processes in general and of the especial procedure in the case of
St Louis of Toulouse.

For about a hundred and fifty years, as Dr Toynbee shows, St Louis of
Toulouse had extraordinary popularity as a Franciscan saint, and was re-
vered in Provence, Italy, Aragon, and, to a less degree, in France and Ger-
many, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Since then his fame
has paled, and to-day devotion to him is largely confined to the members of
his own order, the Franciscans. Why the vogue of the short-lived Bishop,
Franciscan, and Saint (1274-97) thus diminished may not be an unsolved
secret for those who peruse the elaborate examination of the case now
provided by Dr Toynbee.

The work contains no little that should attract the attention of all con-
cerned with the history of the thirteenth century, for many of the facts
mentioned throw side lights on the career and character of various notable
personages of the time. St Louis of Toulouse was the grandnephew of St
Louis IX of France and the brother of the Charles Martel, Titular King of
Hungary, and the King Robert of Naples who engage Dante’s attention in
Canto VIII of the Paradiso. Some scholars think, but possibly without war-
rant, that the reference in verses 145-146 of that Canto is to our saint.

If we may be pardoned for taking up a very minor point raised on pages
6 and 7 of the book, we register our caution with respect to the validity of

336 Reviews

any argument resting solely on the assumption that Aloise is the Venetian
form of Lodovico. Whatever is back of Aluisi, Aloise, Luigi, and the Latin
form Aloysius, the relation to Lodovico is not too obvious.

In her Preface, Dr Toynbee makes specific acknowledgment of her in-
debtedness to the guidance of the late Professor Tout, a valued friend of

SPecuLvuM and a contributor to its pages.
J. D. M. Forp,

Harvard University

A. pE Bowarp, Manuel de Diplomatique Frangaise et Pontificale. 1. Diplomatique Générale.
Avec un album de 54 planches en phototypie. Paris: Auguste Picard, 1929. pp. 397.

Tuts handbook of diplomatics promises to be a welcome addition to the
general treatises already available in the field. It at once invites comparison
with the excellent works of Giry and Bresslau and the briefer, but sub-
stantial, treatments of the subject in the Grundriss of Meister and the Hand-
buch of von Below-Meinecke. Giry’s Manuel de Diplomatique, ever since its
appearance in 1894, has proved an invaluable work of reference, but much
of its utility for the student lies in the chronological and other portions out-
side the domain of diplomatics proper, and a new edition of the whole is
much needed. Bresslau’s more ample Handbuch der Urkundenlehre fiir
Deutschland und Italien is admirable within its limits, but neither the first
edition (1889) nor the enlarged second edition (1912-15) was completed by
the author, who died in 1926. Whatever their regional emphasis, all such
works have in common the diplomatics of the papal chancery and a con-
siderable body of general material, yet they supplement one another with-
out an unreasonable amount of duplication.

The work of which Professor de Boiiard now publishes the first instal-
ment is planned to occupy three volumes, each accompanied by a fascicle of
plates. The second and the third volumes will deal respectively with public
and private documents, the first treats of general diplomatics, with emphasis
on France and the Papacy, comprising an historical and theoretical intro-
duction, an account of the genesis of charters, their general form and con-
tents, and seals and other modes of giving them legal validity. Unlike
Giry, the author omits any special discussion of chronology, linguistics, and
place names, while he treats with greater fulness many questions of diplo-
matics proper. The perspective is more in line with the recent German
manuals than with the French tradition. The style is concise, but the foot-
notes are abundant and show acquaintance with the most recent special
literature of the subject, while at the same time they cite many fresh ex-
amples. In general, both text and notes seem to be sound and accurate.

The facsimiles stand in close relation to the text, which they illuminate
by illustrations from the Archives Nationales and various of the French de-

“O<_W_/arueaere> ws

o
feel

Reviews 337

partmental archives. These are well chosen and well executed for the pur-
pose of making clear the various stages in drawing up, witnessing, and seal-
ing charters. They all relate to the Middle Ages, except for examples from
the Committee of Public Safety, the Convention, and imperial decrees of
1811 and 1812. A curious instance appears in no. xxxi, an extract from the
cartulary of Brioude forged in the late seventeenth century so successfully
as to deceive its earlier critics.

For purposes of comparison with parallel treatises, let us take the discus-
sion of formularies and the ars dictaminis (pp. 122-158), which is about
half as long as the corresponding chapter in Bresslau. The space is saved by
briefer treatment at most points and by the omission of material relating
particularly to Germany and Italy. Except in the case of Marculf, the
Frankish formularies are dismissed very briefly with references to Giry and
Brunner. The new material consists chiefly of references to unpublished
modern formularies of the French royal chancery (page 154) and a citation
of the author’s special study of notarial documents. We miss any account
of the formularies of the bishop’s official in France (e. g., Bry, ‘Notice
sur un formulaire du XIV° Siécle 4 l’Usage de l’officialité d’Orléans,’ in
Nouvelle Revue Historique de Droit, XX XVIII, 417-460 (1914) ), and, as
likewise in Bresslau, any mention of the formularies of the papal penitenti-
ary. In the bibliographies, to take only relevant titles anterior to 1928, we
do not find Biitow, Die Entwicklung der Mittelalterlichen Briefsteller bis zur
Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts (Greifswald diss., 1908), Haskins, ‘An Italian

Master Bernard,’ in Essays Presented to Reginald Lane Poole (1927), or
Wahrmund, Die Ars Notariae des Rainerius Perusinus (1917). Some ac-
count of the Capuan school of dictamen would be a desirable, though not an
indispensable, addition. Taken as a whole, the treatment of the subject,
which is much fuller than Giry’s, is good so far as it goes.

The work is fittingly dedicated to that admirable editor of diplomatic
texts, M. Maurice Prou, Director of the Ecole des Chartes.

CuarLEs H. HAskKIns,
Harvard University

JOSEPH OF EXETER: A NOTE AND A CORRECTION

Wira reference to my article ‘The Bellum Troianum of Joseph of Exeter,’
Specutum v (1930), 70, Mr. J. H. Mozley kindly sends me a collation of
the Westminster MS. (small folio, 13th century), for Bk. i. It almost
always agrees with MS. P against the Vulgate, except that it seems more
carefully written. In Il. 32f-g it agrees with the version in the Delphin
edition, p. 640. The following are the only new readings: |. 239, mitescit;
]. 380, cinzere (my conjecture — see art. cit., p. 71).

In art. cit., p. 50, 1. 9 from the bottom, for ‘always’ read ‘sometimes.’

W. B. Sepewickx,
Wyggeston Boys’ School,
Leicester, England

338

ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOOKS RECEIVED

Under this heading SPEcULUM will list the titles of all books and mono-
graphs on mediaeval subjects as soon as they are received from author
or publisher. In many cases the titles here listed will be reviewed in a
future issue.

Charles Bémont, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester 1208-1265. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1930. Cloth. Pp. viii + 303. $4.50.

I. Bianu and N. Cartojan, Album de Paleografie Romdéneascé (Scrierea Chirilic&). Bucharest:
Socec, 1929. Boards. 21 plates. Lei 170.

R. B. Burke, trans., Gabriel Biel’s Treatise on the Power and Utility of Moneys. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 1930. Boards. Pp. 39. $2.50.

W. M. Calder, ed., Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua I. London: Longmans Green, 1928.
Cloth. Pp. xxviii + 239. 40 shillings.

S. H. Cross, trans., The Russian Primary Chronicle (Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology
and Literature, Vol. x11). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930. Paper. Intro-
duction, pp. 76-135; text pp. 136-320.

A. Foulet, ed., Le Couronnement de Renard (Elliott Monographs, Vol. xxiv). Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1929. Paper. Pp. Ixxix + 125.

S. Guyer and E. Herzfeld, ed., Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua II, Meriamlik und Korykos.
London: Longmans Green, 1930. Cloth. Pp. xvi + 207. 40 shillings.

H. Grundmann, ed., Alexander von Roes De Translatione Imperii und Johannes ton Osna-
brtick De Prerogativa Romani Imperii. Leipzig: Teubner, 1930. Paper. Pp. 38. RM 2.

H. Hauser, La Modernité du XV I* Siécle. Paris: Alcan, 1930. Paper. Pp. 107. Frs. 10.

H. Hermansson, ed. and trans., Ari Thorgilsson’s Book of the Icelanders (Islendingabék).
Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 1980. Paper. Pp. 89. $2.00.

F. Holthausen, ed., Beowulf nebst den Kleineren Denkmdlern der Heldensage. vol. 1, Texte
und Namenverzeichnis; 11, Einleitung, Glossar, und Anmerkungen. Heidelberg: Winter,
1929. Paper. Vol. 1, 6te Aufl., pp. x +123. RM 2.80. Vol. 11, 5te Aufl., pp. iv + 214.
RM 4.20.

G. Leigh, New Light on the Youth of Dante. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930. Cloth. Pp.
viii + 278. $5.00.

H. Leibeschiitz, Das allegorische Weltbild der Heiligen Hildegard von Bingen. Leipzig: Teubner,
1930. Paper. Pp. viii +179. RM 15.

W. Meyer-Liibke, Romanisches Etymologisches Wérterbuch, 3te neu bearbeitete Auflage, Lei-
ferung 1 (Bogen 1-4). Heidelberg: Winter, 1930. Paper. Pp. 64.

E. de Moreau, Saint Anschaire. Louvain: Museum Lessianum, 1930. Paper. Pp. vii + 153.

G. Miiller, Aus Mittelenglischen Medizintexten (die Prosarezepte des Stockholmer Miszellankodex
x 90). Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1929. Paper. Pp. 215. RM 15.

339

340 Announcement of Books Received

B. Nardi, Saggi di Filosofia Dantesca. Milan: Soc. Anon. Ed. Dante Alighieri, 1930. Paper.
Pp. xii + 386. Lire 16.

Schools of Illumination: Reproductions from MSS in the British Museum, Vol. v1, French, Middle
Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. London: British Museum, 1930. Boards. 15 Plates.
£1/5.

J. E. Shaw, Essays on the Vita Nuova (Elliott Monographs, Vol. xx111). Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1929. Paper. Pp. 236.

J. R. Tanner, C. W. Previté-Orton et al., ed., Cambridge Mediaeval History, Vol. v1, The Victory
of the Papacy. New York: Macmillan, 1929. Cloth. Pp. xvii + 1047. $14.00.

S. H. Thomson, ed., Johannis Wyclif Summa de Ente Libri Primi Tractatus Primus et Secundus.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. Cloth. Pp. xxxvi+ 119. $3.50.

L. Thorndike, Science and Thought in the Fifteenth Century. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1929. Cloth. Pp. xiv + 387.

A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, Vol. 11, From the Crusades to the Fall of the Em-
pire. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1929. Cloth. Pp. 502.

E. Walberg, La Tradition de Saint Thomas Becket avant la Fin du XII* Siécle. Paris: Droz,
1930. Paper. Pp. 187.

B. Woledge, L’ Atre Perilleux, Etudes sur les Manuscrits, la Langue et Importance Littéraire du
Poéme, avec un Spécimen du Texte. Paris: Droz, 1930. Paper. Pp. 12 + 134.

The Oxford University Press

ANNOUNCES FOR NOVEMBER PUBLICATION

ENGLISH TRADE IN THE MIDDLE AGES

By L. F. SauzMan

Dr. Salzman’s deft treatment of unruly material is already
familiar. This study, a companion volume to Eneuisu Ivn-
DUSTRIES OF THE MIDDLE AGEs, is based on thousands of en-
tries in the Patent and Close Rolls, Customs Accounts in the
Public Records Office, and early Chancery Proceedings. From
such a bewildering mass of detail the author has made a clear
and stimulating account of the subject. His facts are arranged
under the following heads: Tools of Trade, Money, Credit,
Weights and Measures; the Centres, Town, Market, and Fair;
Merchant Law controlling these centres; Distribution; Ex-
ports; Imports; General Pursuit of Trade. The book will be
fully illustrated. $4.25

Other books by L. F. Salzman

ENG.LisH INDUSTRIES OF THE MippLE AGEs is a survey of the
locale and methods in each of the major industries of pre-
Elizabethan England. In this, as in his forthcoming volume,
Dr. Salzman has made an important contribution to the study
of English economic history. $3.50

EnGuIisH Lire in THE Mippte AGEs conforms to the author’s
belief that a textbook should first of all stimulate interest. The
broad outlook from which it is written will appeal to the gen-
eral reader. Mediaeval England against a background of peace
and war is made vivid in every detail by reason of the frequent
quotations from contemporary literature and the unprece-
dented wealth of illustrations. $3.50

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
114 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK CITY

NEWEST CATALOGUES

No. 596 History. Part I: General and Universal History. 1380 items

597 Prehistoric Science. 552
598 History. Part II: German History. 1945
599 Christian Art. 1645
600 History. Part III: European History. 3200
601 History of Art. 2269
602 German Literature. 1684

Catalogues will be sent free of charge on application

KARL W. HIERSEMANN
LEIPZIG Ci « # « KOENIGSTRASSE 29

E. P. GOLDSCHMIDT & CO. Lr.

45, OLD BOND STREET : : : LONDON, W.1.

Catalogue 23

Mediaeval Latin Literature from
Boethius to Erasmus including
numerous Manuscripts and early
printed Books.

Desiderata Lists carefully attended to.

Soci
611 F
Col

New

Pleas

Nam
Addre

—_

Social Science Abstracts

The Student of Mediaeval Life

will find much valuable material in periodical lit-
erature. Much of this is inaccessible to him through
lack of journals or inability to read a score or more

languages.

Social Science Abstracts

comes to his aid by a great codperative effort in
scholarship. From every part of the world collab-
orators are sending summaries of important articles
which are published in the journal, thus widening the
scope of every medievalist and saving him much
time.

The Service Includes

the history of science, of art, of the church, of the
Jews, the history of thought, together with the vast
field of political, social, and economic history.

The Whole Field of

Social Sciences

is dealt with in SoctaL Science ABsTRacts, thus
constituting the best and most convenient way of
keeping informed on all related subjects. About
4,000 journals in 30 languages are regularly ex-
amined by 1,500 collaborators.

$6 per year in the U.S. $6.50 elsewhere.

FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE

Soca ScrencE ABSTRACTS
611 Fayerweather Hall
Columbia U niversity

New York City

Please enter my subscription.
a
ns a

Vol. I (1929) is still available

enn

No historical student can af- |

ford to neglect it. — American
Historical Review.

Of inestimable value. — His- |

torical Outlook.

A god-send toall of us.— Peter |

GuiLpbay,
Review.

Catholic Historical |

Nothing but praise for the |
splendid work. — W. L. Lan- |

GER, Harvard.

Admirable in every respect. —
JosepuH C. GREEN, Princeton.

Remarkable and up to all |

expectation. — K. Asakawa,

Yale.

Very useful.

— MATTHEW |

Sprinka, Chicago” Theological |

Seminary.

Much to praise.— Roy F.
NIcHOLs, Pennsylvania.

I am an admirer of the work |

you are doing.— F. J. Tscuan,
State College, Pa.

Tremendous success. — L. K. |

Tao, China.

Very much delighted with |
them. — Guy STANTON Forp, |

Minnesota.

Excellent in every way. — Sip-
neEY B. Fay, Harvard.

Never miss an opportunity to |

introduce it. — Puiuie K.
Hirtt1, Princeton.

BD BOBO BOBO DONG WEDSOBOSOBODO DRG

RS RORY PERO RR EOE RORY
ANC = enn age Mean Nae” eed Need) Nee) ee) ee) et) eet ee Vy)

Ny)

SAK
rN

ba
2

Harvard University Press

offers to the readers of Speculum the following selection of notable books
from its list of recent publications:

WITCHCRAFT IN OLD
AND NEW ENGLAND

By Georce Lyman KITTREDGE

“Here is a definitive study and examination that reveals distinguished scholar-
ship, pragmatic common sense, and the most cogent reasoning. It manages
to present the most complete and convincing picture of a horrid superstition
that has ever appeared.... Such a book as this cannot but be extremely
important in the study of the progress of the human race.” — New York
Times. SECOND IMPRESSION. $6.00

FOUNDERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES
By Epwarp Kennarp Ranp
“This is an illuminating and delightful book. . .. Though his touch is light,
his substance is weighty. The main issue of the period with which he deals is
that between Christian discipline and Pagan culture.... It is a worthy

o<
sex
ae

“2S

4 Fe

WES
42° 4d"
ae

)
*

Bx
2,

C~S
OY

DEK
SERS

nNEK
oS) KR

be, companion — and essential prelude — to H. O. Taylor’s The Mediaeval Mind.
Yas The two together offer a bridge of light from antiquity to modernity.” —
) Jefferson B. Fletcher, in The New Republic. Seconp Epirion. $4.00
OO% :

ye SIR THOMAS MALORY

wee ee

By Epwarp Hicks

“The author of the present book has made researches at the Public Record
Office and has made discoveries which throw considerable light on the career
of Sir Thomas Malory, Knight. ... He makes the most of his happy dis-

ns bx
REE

<>
ORS

Se) covery.... He has done his work well, providing the reader with all the
RY references he needs, and giving in an appendix a verbatim copy of the docu-
%) ments in question.” — London Times. Fully illustrated. $2.50
Se

%) BEOWULF AND EPIC TRADITION

Se) By WituiaM WITHERLE LAWRENCE

Se) “The author’s fine scholarship and independent view of the problems in-
Vax volved, constantly show through his clear exposition of the tangled body of
x

e) criticism that has grown up around the Old English epic.” — Saturday
Review of Literature.

x “His book can be read with interest and profit by every Beowulfian scholar.
. .. The work may safely, and indeed warmly, be recommended to Beowul-
>) fians, would-be Beowulfians, and lovers of the early Middle Ages.” — Specu-

lum. Seconp Epition, $3.50

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
7 RanpDa.u Haut, Camsripce, Mass.

CER RRRRRRRERES

SRS RS RSIS ESOS EOL

—
<> $<

wre

.2<

a
3

Ks.<

a
>

S2<
== =

-
<>

ee
5.2 -5.2—5 oP POP.
es Sek Pek Mee Mee

—s

eo
= =:

_
=

aS >.
2 F<

cS
a

ep ew ten
sz se 3:

2 <5
—<

a
——s

P<
ee

—
<>

— <a ——_ —_—_
Sats at
SS StS Ste =

—<

Sa
_—

2 <
=

>—o—<

—_

_——_—
SSS
-<—*s <> 4

<2
<>

——

—_—

-
<

—
=:

A
3

~s<

a
3

a ae
=< =

_ — )
<>2-<-S
><> F<

<<
=—_

oP.
sa >,

IP.
ss =

.
>

7
os

——_

oe
SF

—
=

-
—S—— >

_—

PP.
<=

-
=

~2<

<2
><

-
a

5.2 <-5.2<

= =

—<

S2<
= =

Kos

wes

_
+4

PES >$—> So

6 a>. 2-> a2
= 2 Ste = = 2

EE;

|
(

+
(
(

(

LE-F:

~
P< > 3 <5

—
a
<3

~2<

a
<>

_
1t er.
Sea Set

The Editors of Speculum wish to obtain complete
sets or single copies of Speculum, Vol. 1 (1926). The
sale of this volume has for some time been restricted
to libraries. Yet even with this restriction the small
stock now available, unless replenished, will soon
be exhausted. If any reader knows of a set or of
any single copies of this volume which might be
obtainable, will he kindly communicate with the
Executive Secretary,

The Mediaeval Academy of America
Cambridge, Massachusetts

THE GODDESS FORTUNA IN
MEDIAEVAL LITERATURE

By HOWARD R. PATCH

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH IN SMITH COLLEGE

“About four-fifths of the whole are devoted to a detailed and amply documented
account of the treatment of Fortuna in the literature of mediaeval England,
France, and Italy. . . . His closely packed pages impress upon the reader the
hitherto unrecognized range and richness of the literary treatments of Fortuna
in the Middle Ages. Of interest, too, are the curious parallelisms brought to
light in this study, as the occasional identification of Fortuna with Venus in
the Court of Love poetry, and the astonishing similarity, in certain concrete
attributes, presented by pictorial representations of Fortuna and the Blessed
Virgin. . . . The usefulness of the volume is greatly enhanced by the plates,
many of which represent originals little known and difficult of access.” —
American Historical Review. $5.00 a copy, postpaid.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

1 RANDALL HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

—

STUDIES IN MEDIAEVAL PALAKOGRAPHY

STUDIES IN THE SCRIPT OF TOURS, I

A SURVEY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TOURS
EDWARD KENNARD RAND

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
VotumE I, Text (8% by 12} inches), Votume II, PLates (12} by 16} inches)

Professor Rand’s Survey covers the entire output of a mediaeval copy-
ing centre of first importance through the course of five centuries. In the
text, the manuscripts copied are described and their peculiarities no-
ticed. In the volume of plates are reproduced examples from the man-
uscripts described, which display the extraordinary beauty of the script
and of the illumination.

Bound in heavy green buckram, stamped in gold, $50.00

LUPUS OF FERRIERES
SCRIBE AND TEXT CRITIC

A study of his Autograph Copy of Cicero’s De oratore by
CHARLES HENRY BEESON

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

With a Facsimile of the Manuscript

OnE VoLumE (8} by 93 inches)
Professor Beeson studies the usage of one scribe, rather than of a seri
torium. This scribe, the foremost humanist of the ninth century, indi-
cated hundreds of variants in his text. His copy underwent further
revision in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The facsimile,
together with Professor Beeson’s study, thus furnishes an excellent illus-
tration of the transmission of an important text in the Middle Ages.

Bound in heavy green buckram, stamped in gold, $12.00

T hese publications are offered to members of the Academy at special prices.

THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

— a cmeneneteeenaes — —_— ——— .

——

1Ce8.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Speculum 1930-07: Vol 5 Iss 3"

See other formats